hill to be skipped; injured in 5/16 AAA start

[RynoRules]

k

double

infield hit (dribbler in front of the plate)

cs

lineout to ss

 

Doesn't sound great.

[SouthSideRyan]

That quote would make me feel better if Piniella wasn't a proven liar on this sort of thing. But he is.

 

You really have a one-track mind on this stuff. Different situations require different tools and provide for different results. He might have been wrong or lying about Cedeno, but this is a different situation.

 

It's a situation in which Piniella is asked to identify which baseball players should get playing time in order to advance the team's goal of winning. He's not showing a real good track record in these situations.

 

Ok, so you don't think he is good at his job. Doesn't make him a liar.

 

IIRC, the lying part comes from him saying he was going to get Cedeno starts since he was hitting so well, and then Cedeno proceeded to sit the next 7 games.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

k

double

infield hit (dribbler in front of the plate)

cs

lineout to ss

 

Doesn't sound great.

 

No walks is the thing for me. I'm not worried about his inability to be effective if he's not walking a batter an inning.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Ok, so you don't think he is good at his job. Doesn't make him a liar.

 

Saying he would find starts for Cedeno then benching him for a week does.

[abuck1220]

3 ip, 4 h, 1 er, 0 bb, 3 k's.

 

48 pitches, 32 strikes.

[abuck1220]

k

double

infield hit (dribbler in front of the plate)

cs

lineout to ss

 

Doesn't sound great.

 

he's thrown less than an inning over like the past month and he just got demoted after being one of the best pitchers in the game last year. i'll take one run over three innings and 2/3 strikes given the circumstances.

[abuck1220]

groundout

walk

out of some kind

k

[Jon]

Hill's final line: 5 IP, 7 H, 2 R, 1 BB, 5 K, 3 2B, 1 HR, 78 pitches, 47 strikes, 6-2 GO-FO

 

While he was hit hard, he had much better control. If he can do the same while having an easier time of it in his next start, I think that might be it for Hill at Iowa.

[brinoch]

That quote would make me feel better if Piniella wasn't a proven liar on this sort of thing. But he is.

 

You really have a one-track mind on this stuff. Different situations require different tools and provide for different results. He might have been wrong or lying about Cedeno, but this is a different situation.

 

It's a situation in which Piniella is asked to identify which baseball players should get playing time in order to advance the team's goal of winning. He's not showing a real good track record in these situations.

 

Circumstances change behind the scenes all the time. I know Piniella says things to the media that don't necessarily come true... but that doesn't mean he didn't intend to follow through with his statement. I don't agree very often with Lou's personnel decisions, but let's not get over the top about statements Lou's made. Criticizing the decision should be enough.

 

Besides... you know darn well that athletes and coaches/managers give a lot of stock responses that are full of crap.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Besides... you know darn well that athletes and coaches/managers give a lot of stock responses that are full of crap.

 

Agreed. Which is why, going back to the original point, I don't particularly believe him when he talks about needing Hill.

[brinoch]

Besides... you know darn well that athletes and coaches/managers give a lot of stock responses that are full of crap.

 

Agreed. Which is why, going back to the original point, I don't particularly believe him when he talks about needing Hill.

 

I do believe him. I fully believe Lou wants and hopes the real Rich Hill shows up. I think it's fairly obvious that Lou doesn't much care for Marquis, and Lieber's pretty old and out of shape whereas Hill was an excellent pitcher last year. I think getting Hill back into form is more important to the Cubs (and Lou) than the endless debates about batting order.

 

Oh, and keeping Rothschild from ever interacting with Hill again would be nice as well.

[bring stone back]

Ok, so you don't think he is good at his job. Doesn't make him a liar.

 

Saying he would find starts for Cedeno then benching him for a week does.

 

Actually, it doesn't at all. At no point did he say "I will find him starts within the next week" or give a definitive timetable.

[CubColtPacer]

Besides... you know darn well that athletes and coaches/managers give a lot of stock responses that are full of crap.

 

Agreed. Which is why, going back to the original point, I don't particularly believe him when he talks about needing Hill.

 

I don't know why Lou would specifically mention that to the Reds radio guys in a casual conversation that's not on the air (people he certainly doesn't need to impress) that the Cubs "absolutely need Hill to be himself in order for the team to win this year". The Reds radio guys talked about it as that Lou thought it was one of the biggest keys to the whole season.

 

I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. There's just no real reason why he would feel the need to volunteer that to the opposing team's radio guys if he didn't believe it.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Ok, so you don't think he is good at his job. Doesn't make him a liar.

 

Saying he would find starts for Cedeno then benching him for a week does.

 

Actually, it doesn't at all. At no point did he say "I will find him starts within the next week" or give a definitive timetable.

 

I think it's reasonable to infer that he meant soon and more regular starting than he was already getting, and not that at some indeterminate point in the future he would occasionally start.

 

Your mileage may vary, I guess.

[bring stone back]

Ok, so you don't think he is good at his job. Doesn't make him a liar.

 

Saying he would find starts for Cedeno then benching him for a week does.

 

Actually, it doesn't at all. At no point did he say "I will find him starts within the next week" or give a definitive timetable.

 

I think it's reasonable to infer that he meant soon and more regular starting than he was already getting, and not that at some indeterminate point in the future he would occasionally start.

 

Your mileage may vary, I guess.

 

You clearly drew your own conclusion from his quote - it does not mean he's a liar. Say you don't like him, the way he's handling the lineups, etc...but calling him a liar from one quote is unnecessary and wrong.

[Tracer Bullet]

Besides... you know darn well that athletes and coaches/managers give a lot of stock responses that are full of crap.

 

Agreed. Which is why, going back to the original point, I don't particularly believe him when he talks about needing Hill.

 

Yeah, I agree with you. I have 0 confidence in what Lou says. I'm still waiting for our "everyday CF" to start more than once every 10 games or so. He's having a real tough time finding ABs for a guy he said he needed to (Cedeno) even though another IF went down. Lou has Cedeno is behind Theriot, Fontenot and DeRosa on the depth chart. If that's the case, why would he say he's got to get Cedeno into the lineup?

[C.C.]

I forgot Hill pitched yesterday. Good to see he got his control back. Now he just needs another start or two to sharpen up a bit.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Ok, so you don't think he is good at his job. Doesn't make him a liar.

 

Saying he would find starts for Cedeno then benching him for a week does.

 

Actually, it doesn't at all. At no point did he say "I will find him starts within the next week" or give a definitive timetable.

 

I think it's reasonable to infer that he meant soon and more regular starting than he was already getting, and not that at some indeterminate point in the future he would occasionally start.

 

Your mileage may vary, I guess.

 

You clearly drew your own conclusion from his quote - it does not mean he's a liar. Say you don't like him, the way he's handling the lineups, etc...but calling him a liar from one quote is unnecessary and wrong.

 

The conclusion was reasonable given the context. Most of the information we communicate isn't explicit, it's implied, and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

Given the context, it was clear what that statement meant, and he didn't do what he said he'd do. He lied. He's a liar.

 

You may want to spin it differently, or you may want to be polite and not use the term, but I calls it as I sees it.

[abuck1220]

this worked out well. marquis got rocked in his start against the brewers (remember, they don't hit righties well). hill pitched terribly after his 9 day lay off, burning the bullpen and losing to the cardinals. and now lieber is getting lit up.

 

pretty good chance this little switcheroo will go 0-3. nicely done, lou. i wonder what would have happened had he just left everything ALONE.

[jersey cubs fan]

this worked out well. marquis got rocked in his start against the brewers (remember, they don't hit righties well). hill pitched terribly after his 9 day lay off, burning the bullpen and losing to the cardinals. and now lieber is getting lit up.

 

pretty good chance this little switcheroo will go 0-3. nicely done, lou. i wonder what would have happened had he just left everything ALONE.

 

It's chess man, you don't understand.

 

 

He needs CHANGES.

[CuseCubFan69]

this worked out well. marquis got rocked in his start against the brewers (remember, they don't hit righties well). hill pitched terribly after his 9 day lay off, burning the bullpen and losing to the cardinals. and now lieber is getting lit up.

 

pretty good chance this little switcheroo will go 0-3. nicely done, lou. i wonder what would have happened had he just left everything ALONE.

 

It's chess man, you don't understand.

 

 

He needs CHANGES.

 

Some are better at chess than others.

[abuck1220]

cubs were 16-9 prior to marquis' start against the brewers (when hill was skipped), and they're 3-6 since.

 

way to get your hands all over stuff, lou!

[Tyrant]

cubs were 16-9 prior to marquis' start against the brewers (when hill was skipped), and they're 3-6 since.

 

way to get your hands all over stuff, lou!

 

That's pretty poor reasoning.

[abuck1220]

cubs were 16-9 prior to marquis' start against the brewers (when hill was skipped), and they're 3-6 since.

 

way to get your hands all over stuff, lou!

 

That's pretty poor reasoning.

 

really? why?

 

they've lost every tinkered-with game. if i remember correctly, they shuffled the rotation to allow marquis (and not hill) to start against the brewers. they lost. hill was then nine days removed from his last start when he threw against the cardinals. they lost that game. and lieber, who took hill's spot in the rotation, got battered today. they lost.

 

you really don't see how this rotation shuffle hurt the cubs?

[Tyrant]

cubs were 16-9 prior to marquis' start against the brewers (when hill was skipped), and they're 3-6 since.

 

way to get your hands all over stuff, lou!

 

That's pretty poor reasoning.

 

really? why?

 

they've lost every tinkered-with game. if i remember correctly, they shuffled the rotation to allow marquis (and not hill) to start against the brewers. they lost. hill was then nine days removed from his last start when he threw against the cardinals. they lost that game. and lieber, who took hill's spot in the rotation, got battered today. they lost.

 

you really don't see how this rotation shuffle hurt the cubs?

 

I don't think it's the reason they're 3-6.