Bring Rich Hill Up ASAP...

[CubsWin]

The man seemingly has figured it out. In 6 starts at AAA, he is 3-1 with a 3.66 ERA. In 39.1 IP, he has allowed 27 hits and 10 walks (thats a WHIP of 0.94) while striking out 59 (thats 13.5 Ks/9) and holding opposing batters to a .185 batting average.

 

His ability to get a strikeout when needed by itself is enough reason to have him in the major league bullpen. I don't have his righty/lefty splits, but if he is putting up these numbers while starting and averaging over 6 innings per start, then that must mean he has been able to get righties out, as well as lefties, with some regularity, at least at the AAA level.

 

Lefty relievers are a valuable commodity. Certainly Rusch can be moved to open a permanent spot for Hill. But until Hendry can trade Rusch, why not send down someone like Mitre who has struggled lately and bring up Hill. I know that gives the Cubs 4 lefties in their bullpen, but who cares what side they throw from so long as they can get guys out. And Remmy might as well be a righty anyway.

[Derwood]

Lefty relievers are a valuable commodity. Certainly Rusch can be moved to open a permanent spot for Hill. But until Hendry can trade Rusch, why not send down someone like Mitre who has struggled lately and bring up Hill. I know that gives the Cubs 4 lefties in their bullpen, but who cares what side they throw from so long as they can get guys out. And Remmy might as well be a righty anyway.

 

I think you said it right here. I expect that he may be up on August 1 if either Remmy or Rusch is moved. You don't want to be calling a guy up and sending him back down over and over. If he's doing so well as a starter, why not let him start in AAA and then see if he can start at the major league level? I get tired of seeing guys do great as starters in the minors and then go to the pen in the majors. I think it screws up their preparation and pitching schedule.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

I thought Hendry wanted Hill to be a starter. that's why he was sent down (to get some innings). or it could be one of those, good job kid, go back down before you get rocked and lose your confidence routines.

 

anyway, a left handed starter is far more valuable than a left handed RP, IMO. the transition from a starter's role to the pen is tough to make b/c of the irregularity of work (eg Rusch). if we really need a dominant lefty specialist and can't shore up the pen via trade, then we can bring hill up. i love watching lefties bail out of the box when they see hill's curve. lol, good times. :D

[frostwyrm]

Hill is a starting pitcher. It bothers me when people see a lefty starter and right away they want to put him in the pen as a LOOGY.

[Guest]

Hill is a starting pitcher. It bothers me when people see a lefty starter and right away they want to put him in the pen as a LOOGY.

Same here. I'm not sure why some people are under the impression Hill can't get righties out... it's hard to rack up those kind of K numbers if you're only effective against southpaws.

[CubsWin]

Hill is a starting pitcher. It bothers me when people see a lefty starter and right away they want to put him in the pen as a LOOGY.

It bothers me when people respond to something that was never written. When did anyone in this thread suggest that Hill be turned into a loogy?

 

It seems you want Hill to remain a starter. So do I, but with Jerome Williams still the 5th starter and doing quite well, the Cubs bullpen needing some help and Hill being the best Iowa has to offer, you've really only got two options. Leave Hill in Iowa and let him start or let him help the big club in the bullpen. Sorry, but thems the facts unless Hendry deals one of the 5 starters.

 

Not only did I say nothing about him being a loogy, but as far as I can tell, no one else in this thread was recommending that either, so I don't know who you are referring to when you say "people" and why you would bring up that criticism in this thread. In fact, I wrote that Hill's AAA numbers suggest that he should be quite effective against righties as well, so whats the deal?

[CubsWin]

Hill is a starting pitcher. It bothers me when people see a lefty starter and right away they want to put him in the pen as a LOOGY.

Same here. I'm not sure why some people are under the impression Hill can't get righties out... it's hard to rack up those kind of K numbers if you're only effective against southpaws.

Did you read the posts in this thread?

 

If he's doing so well as a starter, why not let him start in AAA and then see if he can start at the major league level? I get tired of seeing guys do great as starters in the minors and then go to the pen in the majors.

I don't have his righty/lefty splits, but if he is putting up these numbers while starting and averaging over 6 innings per start, then that must mean he has been able to get righties out, as well as lefties, with some regularity, at least at the AAA level.

I thought Hendry wanted Hill to be a starter. that's why he was sent down (to get some innings)....anyway, a left handed starter is far more valuable than a left handed RP, IMO.

Who are you responding to?

[Guest]

Hill is a starting pitcher. It bothers me when people see a lefty starter and right away they want to put him in the pen as a LOOGY.

Same here. I'm not sure why some people are under the impression Hill can't get righties out... it's hard to rack up those kind of K numbers if you're only effective against southpaws.

Did you read the posts in this thread?

 

If he's doing so well as a starter, why not let him start in AAA and then see if he can start at the major league level? I get tired of seeing guys do great as starters in the minors and then go to the pen in the majors.

I don't have his righty/lefty splits, but if he is putting up these numbers while starting and averaging over 6 innings per start, then that must mean he has been able to get righties out, as well as lefties, with some regularity, at least at the AAA level.

I thought Hendry wanted Hill to be a starter. that's why he was sent down (to get some innings)....anyway, a left handed starter is far more valuable than a left handed RP, IMO.

Who are you responding to?

No one in this thread... sorry if there was any confusion in this regard. I just seem to remember that at the time of his brief callup there were some posters (can't remember who) that were of the opinion that Hill's stuff precluded him from being anything more than a LOOGY in the majors.

[LoneStarCubFan]

Unless he's coming up to start there's no reason to bring him up. Just because he's getting it done as a starter doesn't mean he'll get it done as a reliever. Mitre's a good example of this. So is Rusch.

[Hacking Out Machine]

Unless he's coming up to start there's no reason to bring him up. Just because he's getting it done as a starter doesn't mean he'll get it done as a reliever. Mitre's a good example of this. So is Rusch.

 

I think it's pretty obvious that a pitcher's greatest value is when he's starting, but there is no doubt that Hill can help the Cubs right now in the bullpen. Lefties cannot hit him. I know it's a small sample size, but of the six lefties he faced while in the big leagues this year, he walked one and got the rest out, striking out three. He made the likes of Tino Martinez, Carlos Delgado and Geoff Jenkins look feeble against him. Meanwhile, he gave up a .200 .333 .400 line against righties, with a couple of screaming line drive outs in that long outing against the Brewers. He still struck out 6 righties in 4 innings, though. Having said that, it still looked pretty obvious that he was most likely going to walk any dangerous righty he faced, so at this point, it's the understatement of the year that the jury is out on him vs righties in the big leagues.

 

I generally agree that I would be disappointed if he were typecast as a reliever, but if he is better than the guys you currently have, and can serve a purpose as a strike out reliever, it would behoove you to bring him up and use him regularly, especially after September 1st.

[jjgman21]

a little bit of a different take on the situation.

 

I think Hill should definitely be brought back up at the beginning of August if a spot is openned up. I think he offers options as a reliever, much like Rusch, only better as a lefty specialist because of his ability to get the K.

 

but the reason I think this should be done is for his development, not as a way of putting his development in jeopardy. lot's of starters get their feet wet in the majors in a relief role. but my concern is that Hill has thrown just over 100 innings the past two years. he's already at 110+ this year. give him a few more starts in the minors, then 25-30 innings in the bigs, and he'll be at around 160 innings. I wouldn't increase his innings more drastically than that in one season.

[fearthecubs]

Hill is a starting pitcher. It bothers me when people see a lefty starter and right away they want to put him in the pen as a LOOGY.

It bothers me when people respond to something that was never written. When did anyone in this thread suggest that Hill be turned into a loogy?

 

It seems you want Hill to remain a starter. So do I, but with Jerome Williams still the 5th starter and doing quite well, the Cubs bullpen needing some help and Hill being the best Iowa has to offer, you've really only got two options. Leave Hill in Iowa and let him start or let him help the big club in the bullpen. Sorry, but thems the facts unless Hendry deals one of the 5 starters.

 

Not only did I say nothing about him being a loogy, but as far as I can tell, no one else in this thread was recommending that either, so I don't know who you are referring to when you say "people" and why you would bring up that criticism in this thread. In fact, I wrote that Hill's AAA numbers suggest that he should be quite effective against righties as well, so whats the deal?

 

Frostwyrm did the same thing to me in the Borowski/D-Rays thread. Just a note.

[Diffusion]

Hill is a starting pitcher. It bothers me when people see a lefty starter and right away they want to put him in the pen as a LOOGY.

 

Unless Hill can throw either his changeup or his cutter to major league righties, and he didn't in his recent stint with the Cubs, he has no future in a major league rotation.

 

He simply cannot go through a major league lineup three times with a curveball, however good, and a merely okay fastball that he works up in the zone too much with.

 

That combination is good enough for the minor leagues, because the reason most minor leaguers are minor leaguers at all is they can't hit a good breaking ball. When they sit on the curve, not only can they still not hit, but they make it easy to sneak a fastball by them. They don't stand a chance, hence the huge K numbers.

 

The same isn't quite as true for major leaguers. Hill will strike out a lot of major leaguers too. But when he doesn't induce swings and misses, he'll get hit hard. In fact, that's true in the minors as well - Hill has given up 19 home runs on the year already to minor leaguers, 14 of them to righties. If minor leaguers can do that, a good major leaguer, particularly a righty, will have a field day.

 

Hill right now is hugely overrated. Right now, until his changeup and/or cutter are good enough that he can throw them to righties when and where he wants, and developing pitches until they're that good takes time, a commodity that Hill, already 25, doesn't have much of, he actually projects as a LOOGY.

 

The only hope I hold for Hill becoming more than that is that there was a reason he didn't thrown the changeup and cutter in the majors besides them not being good enough pitches. We'll see...

[dalgreen]

I'm happy where Hill is right now. There is no need to bring him up just to have him pitch maybe 2 or 3 innings a week out of the pen the way the starters have been going deep into games. I trust Hendry on this one. There must be an obvious reason why Hill is still in the minors while Mitre and Novoa are up in the bigs. I still very much dislike a 12 man staff, though.

[HoopsCubs]

I'm happy where Hill is right now. There is no need to bring him up just to have him pitch maybe 2 or 3 innings a week out of the pen the way the starters have been going deep into games. I trust Hendry on this one. There must be an obvious reason why Hill is still in the minors while Mitre and Novoa are up in the bigs. I still very much dislike a 12 man staff, though.

 

Dal,

 

Hope you had a nice weekend. My perception is that while Hendry is trying to figure out if he's a buyer or seller for 2005, he is also trying to figure out who's on the staff next year. And I think the three players front and center on his mind are Glendon Rusch, Jerome Williams and Sergio Mitre. What do you do with them? They each have some value on the trade market. To me, I think he envisions the rotation next season to be Wood, Prior, Zambrano, Maddux and Hill. Substitute Angel Guzman or Nolasco for Maddux in 2007. He'll probably need to keep one of Rusch, Williams and Mitre to backfill in the event of injury. But I think two are definitely trade-able. I think there are plenty of teams who could use Rusch or Williams in the stretch as a #4, #5 guy. If they are not in the plans for 2006, I hope Hendry trades them by July 31.

[craig]

I don't have any strong feeling on Hill, other than that he's a pretty valuable commodity right now. It's possible that trading him now would be brilliant, that he's at a "sell high" spot. It's possible that trading him now would be idiocy, that he's going to be a real factor. (Not that anybody has discussed trading him...)

 

Hendry and Fleita are two who in past said they projected Hill as a big-league reliever. That's largely what was in mind when he was drafted, and remained in mind particularly after his wildness through this spring. But now the situation has changed. When Hill came up earlier, Hendry himself said he'd tracked Hill for relief all along, but that now perhaps Hill was showing he could be more than that. Hendry didn't seem convinced, though.

 

Does he have the stuff to start? I don't know yet! During his cameo with Cubs, it was fastball/curve. Can he win with that and go 2-pitch through 6-8 innings of big-league lineup, and keep doing that when St. Louis is seeing him 3 times a year? I don't know yet! Some guys can, most can't. Does the fact that he was fastball/curve with Cubs, and has mostly done fastball/curve with Iowa, mean he's too limited? I don't know yet! May well be that he's just gone with those as long as they're working well, which has been the case all along. But reports are that he has thrown a good cutter and a promising change on occassion earlier this year. Maybe those are just in his back pocket until teams start sitting on his curve/fastball? I don't know. Perhaps two years from now he'll have the dyno curve, the fastball, and he'll also have a high-level cutter and controlled change mixing in as well? If so, he might be Curt Schilling-good for all we know. I don't know.

 

Should he be brought up now? I don't know. I'm fine with him where he is. But the point that an August callup to keep his innings down, that's not a bad idea at all. The idea that if Hendry moved Rusch or Rem, that hill could replace and improve on them, that makes sense too. I also feel that Hill could come straight to rotation, right now; as things stand, why bother. But if Williams was a piece that I could use to bring in Dunn or an outfielder of high Buildican value, I would not hesitate to trade williams and go with Hill.

 

The Loogy issue is relevant to whether or not Hill should come up now for relief. Because the Cubs have a manager, Dusty Baker, and he's not likely to use a rookie Hill much, or against many righties.

[JC]

I don't know Hill's righty/lefty splits, so maybe you guys can help me.

 

From what I've seen of his curve, it is relatively "slow". Thus, my worry is that as a LOOGY, Hill loses a bit of that lefty/lefty advantage. I would think that having a big slow breaking ball eliminates some of the deceptiveness of being pitched to from the same side that you are batting from. Certainly, his curve would still be difficult to hit, but it wouldn't be due to any lefty/lefty advantage, just the movement in its own right.

 

However, that is just my own theory.

[jjgman21]

I am amazed that so many think they can make such definitive judgments about Hill's stuff, makeup, and future after observing his work against a grand total of 23 batters, looking at his minor league numbers, and recalling a couple of Hendry quotes from six months ago.

[JC]

I am amazed that so many think they can make such definitive judgments about Hill's stuff, makeup, and future after observing his work against a grand total of 23 batters, looking at his minor league numbers, and recalling a couple of Hendry quotes from six months ago.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with people drawing conclusions based on available information. For purposes of a discussion, threads would go nowhere, have no substance, and receive little feedback if people weren't willing to apply available information, limited though it may be, and share their opinions and analysis.

 

The responsible and reasonable community members all realize that these are predictions based on incomplete information. Such is life. You can't wait until Hill has a five year ML career to start analyzing it in hindsight. What good would that do? How interesting would that be?

 

Most opinions/conclusions communicated herein are responsible, many including tacit or express disclaimers regarding the fact that such conclusions are based on limited data. If conclusions aren't draw and disseminated in threads like this, NSBB would be no more than a virtual bulletin board with no necessity for discussion.

[jjgman21]

I am amazed that so many think they can make such definitive judgments about Hill's stuff, makeup, and future after observing his work against a grand total of 23 batters, looking at his minor league numbers, and recalling a couple of Hendry quotes from six months ago.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with people drawing conclusions based on available information. For purposes of a discussion, threads would go nowhere, have no substance, and receive little feedback if people weren't willing to apply available information, limited though it may be, and share their opinions and analysis.

 

The responsible and reasonable community members all realize that these are predictions based on incomplete information. Such is life. You can't wait until Hill has a five year ML career to start analyzing it in hindsight. What good would that do? How interesting would that be?

 

Most opinions/conclusions communicated herein are responsible, many including tacit or express disclaimers regarding the fact that such conclusions are based on limited data. If conclusions aren't draw and disseminated in threads like this, NSBB would be no more than a virtual bulletin board with no necessity for discussion.

 

I know what you are saying. just seems like some are being awefully definitive and forceful in their arguments with some pretty limited information. I'm just one that thinks its awefully difficult to draw such conclusions based on what we have seen so far.

[ZZ Thorn]

I'd bet Hill gets called up in September for the pen, and I bet he's pretty much a LOOGY during that time. If he does well, and he does dominate lefties, I could see him staying on the playoff roster, should we make it.

 

I think they ought to bring him up to the pen now tho, cuz what's the long term plan? '06 has 4 starters locked in, and Williams is doing well as the 5th - if the Cubs wanted Hill over Williams as the starter they really could have done so by now. So there's no room as a starter in '06, but they really can't leave Hill in the minors again next year. I say bring him up and use him out of the pen, where he can be a real boon to the big league squad.

[frostwyrm]

I'd bet Hill gets called up in September for the pen, and I bet he's pretty much a LOOGY during that time. If he does well, and he does dominate lefties, I could see him staying on the playoff roster, should we make it.

 

I think they ought to bring him up to the pen now tho, cuz what's the long term plan? '06 has 4 starters locked in, and Williams is doing well as the 5th - if the Cubs wanted Hill over Williams as the starter they really could have done so by now. So there's no room as a starter in '06, but they really can't leave Hill in the minors again next year. I say bring him up and use him out of the pen, where he can be a real boon to the big league squad.

 

You've got Williams' name carved in stone in the 2006 rotation, but I doubt the Cubs do. If Hill and Williams are both around next spring they will compete for a spot, or at least I hope so. I will be very disappointed if Hill is converted into a LOOGY without a fair chance to earn a starting job.

[craig]

You've got Williams' name carved in stone in the 2006 rotation, but I doubt the Cubs do. If Hill and Williams are both around next spring they will compete for a spot, or at least I hope so. I will be very disappointed if Hill is converted into a LOOGY without a fair chance to earn a starting job.

 

Williams hasn't started many games yet. We'll see how he does over the next weeks and two+ months. By October it might be pretty evident that he's a stable, competent pitcher. Or that he's just not too good, and doesn't look to be much more than the 1W-3L, homer-prone 4.89 guy we've seen so far.

 

I agree that Williams hasn't done enough to lock up a 2005 rotation spot. However, Dusty loves a guy who's been around, so certainly the burden of proof will be on Williams to lose that job or for Hill to steal it with Dusty.

 

That said, I'd be pretty interested in keeping Hill in the rotation pool. Even if he's marked as the #6 starter in November, I don't see that as a big problem. Maddux is not going to be brought back after 2006, so if Hill had to wait another year, is that the worst thing possible? And that would happen only in the unlikely event that Williams pitched well enough to hold that job, both this season and next spring, and that then all the rotation guys stayed healthy all next year. How likely is that?

 

In other words, I think the Cubs could do lots worse than having Hill on hold as the #6 guy for next year, with opportunity awaiting an injury or a Williams failure or at worst (for him, at best for the team) having the current rotation stay so healthy and so effective that they don't miss a start until Maddux leaves in 2007.

 

The above suggests that I want Hill to be available for rotation. That can be a problem in Dusty-land if he is on the roster in relief. I can imagine him entering camp next year outside of the annointed starting five; then making the team as a lefty reliever; then Dusty using him very little and in situational lefty places. The in June Williams flops or somebody gets hurt, and what happens? Board says "start Hill, Start Hill!" but Dusty says, "He hasn't been stretchet out, he worked at most 3 innings in a couple of spring training games and only 1-2 innings max since then, if I put him into rotation he won't be stretched out and it wouldn't be fair to the bullpen. I'm going to call up Koronka instead, because he's got a better chance to give up 6 innings..."

 

Point being, it's hard to switch into rotation once you work in Dusty's bullpen for a while. If Hill makes the team next spring in relief, I'm not sure he'll get a shot at rotation no matter how well he pitches or what injuries trouble the rotation.