What's the Difference?
by DartmouthCubsFan on May 5, 2008 12:07 PM CDT
103 comments
I haven't read through "all" of the recent posts, so forgive me if this isn't post worthy or if this was addressed in a game thread I missed, but can someone explain to me what the difference between Friday and Sunday night's games were from a starting pitching standpoint? Because as we know the end result was much different, as one pitcher is in Iowa and the other is still in the rotation with no threats to his spot.
Let's take out names (although i'm sure they'll be relatively obvious) and just focus on the performance of the two individuals in question.
Friday night vs. Sunday night:
Through the first 5 batters:
Pitcher A: 2/3 IP, 1 K, 3 BB's, bases loaded 2 out, score 0-0
Picher B: 2/3 IP, 1 K, 3 BB's, bases loaded 2 out, score 0-0
In both instances a mound visit from the pitching coach came, but in one instance the bullpen began warming.
Each pitcher was allowed to face the next batter and each had differing results. Pitcher B gave up a 3-2 BB that walked in the first run of the game, making the score 1-0. Pitcher A gave up a rocket line-drive that would've scored 2 runs but was snared by our glorious gold glove 1B, ending the inning with a 0-0 score.
While it would seem those results are fairly similar, Pitcher B was immediately removed from the game and handed a plane ticket, while Pitcher A was allowed to work through the inning and last deeper into the game.
Pitcher A's night continued on, as he allowed 2 runs in the next inning, squandering a 2-0 lead. The damage could've been worse but he was saved by a rocket line drive that turned into a DP because of some slick fielding at the SS position. Despite allowing 2 more runs and a rocket that could've resulted in another run and a bigger inning, Pitcher A was allowed to stay in the game. Pitcher A then settled down in the 3rd inning, walking one but ultimately getting through unscathed. However the next inning things unraveled again when Pitcher A yielded his 5TH walk of the game just before Albert Pujols, who promptly doubled in the winning 2 runs.
So here's my question? What was different between these two situations that led to completely different results? Maybe it was how the two pitchers had pitched coming into their starts? Let's take a look:
Pitcher A: 1-1, 4.45 ERA, 1.62 WHIP, K/9 = 5.4, BB/9 = 3.18, IP/S = 5.66
Pitcher B: 1-0. 3.79 ERA, 1.42 WHIP, K/9 = 6.6, BB/9 = 6.6, IP/S = 4.75
Both pitchers were clearly ineffective heading into these starts. While one pitcher had immense struggles with his control, the other pitcher was getting raked around the park. Neither pitcher was lasting deep into games.
So if there wasn't much difference between their previous 2008 results, maybe it has to do with how these players have performed further in the past. So let's check out how they each performed for this manager last season:
Pitcher A: 12-9, 4.60 ERA, 1.39 WHIP, K/9 = 5.12, BB/9 = 3.57, IP/S = 5.79
Pitcher B: 11-8, 3.92 ERA, 1.19, K/9 = 8.45, BB/9 = 2.90, IP/S = 6.09
So if anything Pitcher B has a better track record of delivering performance under this manager's regime.
So why is Pitcher B in Iowa and why is Pitcher A still in the rotation?
Note: I'm not trying to suggest Marquis should be in Iowa, I'm just trying to understand what the difference between these two situations is, other than the way the manager has handled them. Both Pitchers have struggled and pitched well under the Cubs expectations, but one was sent packing and the other was left unscathed (No suggestions of skipping him, no threats to his job status, no suggestion of a trip to the bullpen or the minors)
So what the heck is going on here?
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.
0 recs |
103 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Besides salary
Marquis was missing, Hill had no clue where it was going
"Hey.....Cubs win!!!" ---Harry
"Swung on belted!!!"---Chip
by Hammer on May 5, 2008 12:19 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
through 5 batters
Marquis 19 pitches, 6 strikes
Hill 20 pitches, 7 strikes
through 6 batters
Marquis 21 pitches, 7 strikes (33%)
Hill 27 pitches, 10 strikes (37%)
by DartmouthCubsFan on May 5, 2008 12:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Through the course of the season prior to this weekend
Marquis: 28.1 IP, 10 BB
Hill: 19 IP, 14 BB
If you can’t see the difference between the two, I can’t help you. Marquis is not good, but he’s not one that you expect to continue to have control problems in a game. Hill has struggled mightily with his control all season.
Trust me, I don’t think Piniella is a fan of EITHER pitcher.
by SouthernCub on May 5, 2008 12:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
for his career
Hill has a lower BB Rate than Marquis. So we’re taking a 19 Inning sample + 6 batters and judging that against an entire career in which Marquis has struggled with control and effectiveness?
by DartmouthCubsFan on May 5, 2008 12:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, we are...
Piniella is all about small sample sizes. More importantly, Hill has SYSTEMATICALLY shown control problems this year. He’s walked a bunch of people in EVERY start. It’s not like what Hill did last year was likely to suddenly show up in the second inning.
Also, I wouldn’t say Marquis has struggled all that much with control. He’s been mediocre. Again, this season, Hill has consistently struggled with control. Marquis has consistently been mediocre with his control. There was reason to believe that Marquis would not struggle with walks the rest of the way. There was no reason to anticipate the same for Hill.
by SouthernCub on May 5, 2008 12:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
the eye of a baseball coach
You are missing the eye of what is known, not merely statistics that those who don’t have that eye look for other indicators. Meaning they knew that how Hill was pitching, his mechanics were all messed up and they were not going to get better. They probably knew this before the game time but let Hill out there to see if he could correct them anyway.
Let me give you an analogy from my own experience--again—golf. golf coaches and golf teaching pros can tell almost immediately how you are going to play by movements in my swing that most never could detect. These small movements or deviations changed dramatically the fine skills needed to play below par.
What you are not seeing is what you can’t see in statistics.
Piniella: "This is a tougher job than I thought it would be, I'm going to be honest with you."
by Ivy Walls on May 5, 2008 12:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But
you have to be able to see to gather statistics. It doesn’t occur in a vacuum. Read “Moneyball.” It’s all about the eye, but the eye that’s also informed, not only by experience, but by understanding the predictive nature of stats.
"I've always felt that starting pitching is the most important part of the rotation." - Joe Morgan, Sunday Night Baseball 8-12-07
by gary varsho on May 5, 2008 1:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I read moneyball
To me the big thing was that in determining draft choices was substantiate it in scouting, look at the statistical indicators and back that up with a discerning eye. Money ball also showed that scouts were not really accountable….
You are mixing metaphors between Hill and moneyball
Piniella: "This is a tougher job than I thought it would be, I'm going to be honest with you."
by Ivy Walls on May 5, 2008 2:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That train has sailed.
THAT’S a mixed metaphor. I did nothing of the sort.
Hill’s peripherals and his minor league numbers indicate that he is and will be a much better major league pitcher than Jason Marquis. You don’t have to watch them pitch to know that; it does help to see them, however, because then you realize that Rich gets a bit more rattled because he’s used to dominating whereas Marquis is used to, well, sucking, so when he walks the bases loaded, it’s not such a big deal to him. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with Rich’s mechanics. He’s just aiming his fastball and overthrowing his curveball. All he needed was to calm down and get in a groove. Instead, he got a ticket to Iowa.
"I've always felt that starting pitching is the most important part of the rotation." - Joe Morgan, Sunday Night Baseball 8-12-07
by gary varsho on May 5, 2008 2:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i guess these "immeasurables"
are the same things i can’t see in why Lou has Marmol on pace to throw 109 innings this year out of the pen
The “eye of a baseball coach” is something i might not have and maybe you’re right with Hill on this one, maybe he wouldn’t have gotten out of it. But we’ll never know because Lou never lets him work through things in a game. When Hill is cruising he’s taken out immediately at the first sign of struggles.
My point with the initial sentence is that Lou and his baseball coach eyes aren’t infallible either, just like a statistician analyzing the numbers isn’t infallible either
by DartmouthCubsFan on May 5, 2008 1:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I completely agree that Lou isn't infallible...
I think he makes a lot of rash decisions that aren’t necessarily good ones. And while he’s an upgrade from Dusty, he definitely still gives too much deference to the mediocre veteran.
However, in this case, I think he’s justified. Hill hasn’t been the same pitcher as last year in any start this year. The command is just not there. I have to believe it’s mechanical, otherwise he wouldn’t have had 14 BB in only 19 IP.
by SouthernCub on May 5, 2008 1:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hold on both thoughts.......
First statistics are merely a measurement, not just the only measurement and yes the intangible or more the subjective analysis by a human is part of it. I am certain that Rothschild and staff have been working with Hill for sometime to fix his mechanics….which I will describe as pitching up hill and not following through. Also Maddux is once stated to know exactly what Hill is going to throw from a “tell” in his his delivery so I am certain this is known throughout baseball. Hill also has a long lanky delivery which can get out of whack fast….Lastly he really only has two pitches which he changes speed and location, but he really needs a straight change—-a good one where he can throw that and the fastball more often and then spot his curve as a killer out pitch.
Statistics actually reinforce these trends/flaws and will indicate them. Ultimately the real statistic is quality start, wins and losses…IP pitched…..all others are merely indicators or predictors of the above…..
Let us say ERA….an old standard…..tells you how many runs per 9 innings, WHIP will tell you how effective one gets through innings without runners on bases….both indicators, K/BB is an indicator of how dominant you are, but the reality is IP’d, wins and losses and quality starts….those are the result statistics….
Lou is not infallible…he is human nuff said….But neither was Earl Weaver, Bobby Cox, Tony La Russa, Mike Scocia [SIC], Joe Torre…..the thing is being right more than wrong.
Now if you are defending Hill….GET OVER IT….he is not right…..lucky Hill had an option year left to send him down to get him right….Marquis the Cubs would have to release….or trade…..
Piniella: "This is a tougher job than I thought it would be, I'm going to be honest with you."
by Ivy Walls on May 5, 2008 2:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not really sure what you are trying to argue...
Firstly, W/L are a terrible measure of pitching performance. Bringing them up is irrelevant. IP is a function of WHIP and the other stats. Guys don’t tend to succeed long-term in IP unless they’re pretty decent in terms of the predictive stats. Which is why I prefer to look at the predictive stats, not the results stats (which can be heavily influenced by a team’s offense, random luck, the opposing pitcher, etc).
Also, if it was known what Hill was going to throw THROUGHOUT baseball, then Hill wouldn’t have likely have gotten anyone out this year. He certainly wouldn’t have kept a WHIP around 1.5 and an ERA around 4, and he wouldn’t have had nearly as many Ks. His numbers would have looked more like Gallagher’s numbers from last year (8.59 ERA, 2.11 WHIP). I think this is a case of you just throwing something out there as fact with no real evidence to support it other than an unsubstantiated “quote” from Maddux.
And as for good managers being right more than being wrong, I agree. But when you’re wrong, you’re still wrong.
Finally, I wasn’t defending Hill. I’ve been trying to explain why Hill was sent down.
by SouthernCub on May 5, 2008 2:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
seemed to me
that while Marquis was struggling with control, Hill had NONE. And that Marquis issues are skill-based, whereas Hill’s are head-based. Why Hill’s head-based issues are solvable in Iowa while Marquis skills-based ones aren’t, I don’t know.
Also, it seems to me that Marquis has more experience, and can “soldier through” getting knocked around a little bit; I thought that Lou was worried about Hill getting even more mental, which pushing through an increasingly bad-looking inning might have caused?
2008: The year we put it all together.
by drewishdrewid on May 5, 2008 12:19 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
If I were him
it would be worse to be yanked that soon than give up a bunch of runs
by TC Cubby on May 5, 2008 1:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We have to believe
at this point that Lou had a good reason. Has anyone asked him WHY he pulled Hill and not Marquis? I mean the press, of course…
2008: The year we put it all together.
by drewishdrewid on May 5, 2008 2:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Three big differences that I can see...
1. Pitcher A has about $15 million still owed him over this season and next, and cannot be sent to Iowa, while Pitcher B has options left.
2. Prior to this weekend, Pitcher A hanot had quite the same difficulty with control that Pitcher B has had. Pitcher A had had just 10 BB in 28.1 IP, while Pitcher B had had 14 BB in 19 IP. There was reason to believe that Pitcher A might settle down.
3. Pitcher B was pitching in a game in which he COULD be reasonably pulled in the first inning. Pitcher A was pitching in a situation in which the team could afford to use the bullpen for another 8-9 innings.
by SouthernCub on May 5, 2008 12:21 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I would agree with all three of these and just add...
...two words (one of them an abbreviation): MLB experience. Marquis has been around long enough for Lou to know approximately what he’s going to get from Jason. Rich Hill, on the other hand, is still young enough to perhaps mold into an effective, maybe even high-level starter. I think Lou is trying to prevent Hill from getting beaten up so badly that his confidence will never recover. If Marquis gets hit all over the field…well, it wouldn’t be the first time.
Nanika Ga Okoru!
Oh, and remember, folks: Alfonso Soriano is NOT batting leadoff. He's batting first.
by dat cubfan daver on May 5, 2008 12:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed...
Marquis has a history of being a mediocre pitcher. He is what he is. Hill is a work in progress, and has been struggling with his command.
by SouthernCub on May 5, 2008 12:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
on #3
Pitcher B followed a game in which the entire bullpen had been rested with the exception of Carlos Marmol.
Pitcher A followed a game in which both Marmol and Wood had been used
2 days before Pitcher A’s game, Howry/Marmol/Wuertz were all used (don’t get me started on Marmol throwing in a 19-5 game AND a 6-2 game, that might be another entire post)
So the 2 days before Pitcher A, the following bullpen pieces had been used: Howry, Marmol (Twice), Wuertz, Wood
the 2 days before Pitcher B pitched, the following bullpen pieces were used: Marmol, Wuertz, Marshall (1/3 of an inning), Howry, Wood, Fox
by DartmouthCubsFan on May 5, 2008 12:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let's drop the silly "Pitcher X"...
Because I think you’ve flipflopped them…
When Hill started, the Cubs had a rested Lieber available, as well as Marmol, Marshall, and Fox available. That meant three long men and Marmol.
For Marquis’ start, Lieber was no longer available, nor was Marmol. Marshall and Gallagher were the only long men available.
Moreover, that was my THIRD reason why Marquis stayed in and Hill didn’t – the first two were much more important reasons.
As for
by SouthernCub on May 5, 2008 12:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
fair enough
on point 1:
i’d argue making your decisions based on salary is silly and completely ignoring the concept of sunk costs. I’d prefer my team not make decisions in this manner
on point 2:
Hill hasn’t been given the opportunity to “settle in” in ANY of his starts. Lou has pulled him repeatedly at the first sign of weakness (look at starts in COL and at home vs. PIT). I agree Hill had shown “less liklihood” of settling in than Marquis based on this 20 inning sample we’re working with. But based on the more appropriate 200 inning sample we had last year, its pretty clear Hill would have just as good of a chance at settling in. The problem is he hasn’t gotten a single chance this year to work through the control issues. As soon as he shows them at all, he’s pulled
by DartmouthCubsFan on May 5, 2008 12:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You make an interesting point...
...and you’ve taught me something, because I honestly hadn’t realized how similiar Hill and Marquis’ respective performances had been so far this year. The best guess I can venture, beyond the salary thing, is Lou just had a gut feeling that Hill was going to get rocked and he fears getting anything from Rich Hill this season if an opposing team has a really big inning against him.
Nanika Ga Okoru!
Oh, and remember, folks: Alfonso Soriano is NOT batting leadoff. He's batting first.
by dat cubfan daver on May 5, 2008 12:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree on point 1, disagree slightly on point 2...
On point 1, I’d probably not make a decision based on money. But I’m not the one in charge of the organization, and $15 million is a lot of money. On a related note, I am quite sure that the Cubs would love to be able to move Marquis.
On point 2, I think the 200-inning sample from last year isn’t necessarily the more appropriate sample from which to judge Hill. It MIGHT be, but it could also be that there are mechanical flaws that Hill has developed this year that he’s been unable to address. If that’s the case, then the 19-inning sample is the more relevant sample.
In any case, I’m quite confident that those are the two biggest reasons that Piniella did what he did with Hill and not with Marquis.
by SouthernCub on May 5, 2008 12:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hill
was not good in spring training. That’s two months of walks and ineffectiveness. Lou had enough. Plus, Hill was first to look poor in this 3 game series, Lou just can’t send every guy down that has a bad game. Personally though, I like the accountability Lou has with this team. If you don’t hit or can’t pitch, someone else will be given a shot. Hill also had options left I’m sure and he also turned it around the last time he was sent down in mid-season. It just had to be done. We’re not going any place without an effective starting staff. If this continues into July, I say make a trade. Until then, let’s see how Gallagher and Leiber do (and maybe Marshall). We may already have the replacement in hand.
This is only the beginning....Lou Pinella end of '07 season and Chicago Transit Authority (the band when they were really good).
by mrcubsfan on May 5, 2008 12:22 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Jason Marquis was not good ever.
That’s eight years and 1135.7 innings of walks, home runs and general ineffectiveness.
by cwyers on May 5, 2008 12:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
accountability
So Lou makes HIll accountable but not Marquis right?
Also while Hill had “two months of walks and ineffectiveness”, I’d argue we’ve had 1+ year of walks, hits, and ineffectiveness from Marquis
by DartmouthCubsFan on May 5, 2008 12:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
See my post...
Marquis is mediocre, but he’s also generally good for a mediocre performance. This year, Hill has regularly thrown way too many walks. Marquis has not.
by SouthernCub on May 5, 2008 12:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Following up on my previous post...
...I wouldn’t use the word “accountable” in regards to Hill. Rather, I’d use the word “teachable”—at least from Lou’s perspective.
Nanika Ga Okoru!
Oh, and remember, folks: Alfonso Soriano is NOT batting leadoff. He's batting first.
by dat cubfan daver on May 5, 2008 12:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
there ya go.
Marquis is an old dog. He’s got his uses, and eating innings is one of them. That game last night was very winnable.
Hill, on the other hand, was playing the first game of the series, and has looked shaky since February. He’s also young enough that (hopefully) he can be reworked, and made better.
2008: The year we put it all together.
by drewishdrewid on May 5, 2008 12:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
n/t
"I've always felt that starting pitching is the most important part of the rotation." - Joe Morgan, Sunday Night Baseball 8-12-07
by gary varsho on May 5, 2008 12:27 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Maybe we're looking at this the wrong way
Could it be that the Cubs think that Hill’s problems are correctable and more a question of giving him a chance to relax and rebuild his confidence in less high pressure situations?
Marquis, on the other hand, is more of a lost cause. The only thing to do with him now is now is to try to find another team desperate (or clueless) enough to take him.
by bluekoolaide on May 5, 2008 12:30 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
high pressure situations
do you think the high pressure situations are a result of pitching in the majors? Or are they a result of pitching in the majors with a manager who comes up with a new idea for your role after every start (bullpen, skipped start, trip to the minors) and is willing to pull you in the 1st inning of an outing
by DartmouthCubsFan on May 5, 2008 12:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
My perspective precisely...
...though I’m not sure I’d call Jason Marquis a “lost cause.” He is what he is—a No. 4 or No. 5 innings eater who’s going to give up a lot of hits and runs, so your team better be ready to play great defense and swing the bats if you expect to win with him on the mound. Honestly, his line last night wouldn’t have looked all that bad to me if he had gone another inning or so and not walked so many guys.
Nanika Ga Okoru!
Oh, and remember, folks: Alfonso Soriano is NOT batting leadoff. He's batting first.
by dat cubfan daver on May 5, 2008 12:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
but how bad would it have looked
if DLee doesn’t rob Duncan’s line drive and its 3-0 in the first?
Marquis was given the opportunity to work through his control problems, while Hill was given a seat on the bench.
The two pitchers were handled completely differently despite performing at nearly identical levels. Perhaps had Hill been given the opportunity to get Izturis out he would have settled in and performed admirably. Perhaps he would’ve walked the next 3 batters and he’d be in Iowa anyway. The point is we don’t know how Hill would’ve responded because Lou refuses to let him work things out at the major league level.
by DartmouthCubsFan on May 5, 2008 12:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, but
Lee did.
Hill wasn’t even giving his infield a chance to help him. Four batters, four walks.
2008: The year we put it all together.
by drewishdrewid on May 5, 2008 12:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
you realize
through the first 5 batters, they performed IDENTICALLY
so we’re talking about 1 batters worth of difference?
by DartmouthCubsFan on May 5, 2008 12:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I do realize, yes
All I can say is that Hill looked, to my eye, utterly lost, and Marquis didn’t.
2008: The year we put it all together.
by drewishdrewid on May 5, 2008 12:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd argue that's because Marquis is a lot more familiar with those sorts of situtions.
I don’t think that means he’s any better at getting out of them.
by cwyers on May 5, 2008 1:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even if that were the case,
Marquis looked pretty punch-drunk out there last night himself.
"I've always felt that starting pitching is the most important part of the rotation." - Joe Morgan, Sunday Night Baseball 8-12-07
by gary varsho on May 5, 2008 1:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If "IFs and BUTs"
There’s no “IF” to discuss. “IF” Hill had gotten the out instead of the walk, he’d probably have stayed in the game. “IF” Lee had not made the play, then who knows what would have happened. The point is, Hill didn’t get the out, and Lee did make the play. That’s life.
More importantly, why do you continue to ignore the obvious and important differences?
1. Marquis makes a lot of money and can’t be sent down
2. Hill has struggled badly with walks in every game this season, Marquis has not
3. Hill is young and can be potentially fixed with work in the minors, Marquis can not
4. The bullpen was slightly more taxed
You asked for differences. Differences have been suggested. If you just wanted people to agree with you that you think Hill is getting a bad rap, then why even pose the question?
by SouthernCub on May 5, 2008 12:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
the differences suggested
aren’t ones that I agree a good organization or manager should be making decisions off of:
1. Money
2. Small Samples
3. I actually agree with this one
4. “slightly” more taxed is a silly reason for making that decision. We had just sent one of our long men down the day of Friday’s game, just like we had just sent one of our long-men to the rotation before Sunday’s game. The situations weren’t that much different.
by DartmouthCubsFan on May 5, 2008 12:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good grief
If you don’t understand why Rich Hill was removed from the starting rotation then I don’t know what to say. Despite what the sabermetricians of the world like to believe, not every decision can be analyzed in a vacuum, or via tidy comparison of player X versus player Y. We all know that Jason Marquis generally stinks. But at least he gives this team innings and has penchant for keeping the Cubs “semi-in” most of his starts. Rich Hill was single handedly burning up the bullpen. You can’t have that.
by MDBNIU on May 5, 2008 12:35 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
and...nobody is writing off Rich Hill
Decision was made to remove him from the rotation and ship him off to Des Moines not as penalty but rather to get corrected what ails his pitching mechanics and approach to getting hitter’s out.
by MDBNIU on May 5, 2008 12:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
where are the innings?
Marquis averaged less than Hill last year, and this year he had averaged under 1 inning more than Rich a start? Marquis has gone more than 6 innings, twice in his 6 starts
i guess these supposed innings Marquis is eating aren’t measurable
by DartmouthCubsFan on May 5, 2008 12:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We're talking THIS year, not last year
Baseball isn’t a history lesson all the time. Rich Hill did quite well in 2007. But the wheels have fallen off in 2008.
by MDBNIU on May 5, 2008 12:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The only reason Marquis is eating more innings than Hill this season...
...is because he has a longer leash. It’s circular reasoning, as the whole question is WHY he has a longer leash.
by cwyers on May 5, 2008 12:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have to admit...
...I haven’t looked at closely at this as I should have. Indeed, Marquis has failed this team mightily so far this year when it comes to eating innings. My point still stands, though: I think Lou believes Hill is fixable; whereas Marquis isn’t going to change (anything other than his uniform) anytime soon.
Nanika Ga Okoru!
Oh, and remember, folks: Alfonso Soriano is NOT batting leadoff. He's batting first.
by dat cubfan daver on May 5, 2008 12:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Probably yes...
Nobody, least of all Lou Piniella, has written off Rich Hill. What they are trying to do is to fix the young man. Jason Marquis is what he is. You ride that p.o.s. for as long as you can ride it. There’s no improving Marquis.
by MDBNIU on May 5, 2008 12:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Among the 5 starters,
Marquis is 4th in IP at a paltry 33.2 IP in 6 games started. He averaging just over 5 IP a start. That’s mediocre at best. It certainly isn’t “giving you team innings.” The only reason he isn’t dead last is that Rich Hill’s been skipped once, pushed back once, and now has been demoted. Moreover, in those marvelous 5 IP Marquis gives us, he averages a whopping 92 pitches, so he’s not even economical with his pitches. Here’s his line so far: 33.2 IP, 43 H, 19 ER, 3 HR, 18 BB, 13 K, 5.61 ERA, 1.72 WHIP. That is a steaming pile of horrid pitching.
READ SOMETHING, FOR GOD”S SAKE.
"I've always felt that starting pitching is the most important part of the rotation." - Joe Morgan, Sunday Night Baseball 8-12-07
by gary varsho on May 5, 2008 12:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're an idiot.
Innings pitched, 2007:
Marquis – 191.7
Hill – 195.0
Yeah, Marquis does a better job of giving the team innings than Hill. Good lord, you’re about as dense as spent plutonium.
by cwyers on May 5, 2008 12:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't disagree with your initial supposition
:P
But. Did you really think that Hill was going to be able to get out of that first inning without a lot more damage?
2008: The year we put it all together.
by drewishdrewid on May 5, 2008 12:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
In summary
1. Rich Hill is broken. He was removed from the rotation and sent to Des Moines in hopes of fixing what ails him. He’s a valuable commodity.
2. Jason Marquis is broken. He’s always been broken. But unlike Hill, there is no hope of fixing him. Oh, and lest we forget, he is owed an enormous sum of money thru 2009 making his completely untradeable. And we all know the Cub organization is not prone to eating salary in the name of getting rid of waste of roster space.
3. So what happens? Well, hopefully Hill gets things figured out and is back helping this ballclub in the 2nd half. And hopefully we get everything out of Marquis that the pile of garbage can give.
ROOTING AGAINST MARQUIS IS ASSINE BECAUSE HE ISN’T GOING ANYWHERE FOLKS. About the best you can hope for is that he breaks his leg coming out of the shower and spends the remainder of the year on the DL.
by MDBNIU on May 5, 2008 12:52 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Completely untradeable?
Bwawaw…..right. Wishing injury on a valuable team member. Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
baaaaaaaaaaa
"Hey.....Cubs win!!!" ---Harry
"Swung on belted!!!"---Chip
by Hammer on May 5, 2008 12:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Uh, actually I think the best we can hope for is...
...Jim Hendry trades Jason Marquis for a useful player. He won’t do anyone any good on the DL.
Nanika Ga Okoru!
Oh, and remember, folks: Alfonso Soriano is NOT batting leadoff. He's batting first.
by dat cubfan daver on May 5, 2008 12:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rooting agaisnt Marquis may be "assine,"
but hoping your post will improve or at least attain some level of argumentative rigor over time would be asinine.
"I've always felt that starting pitching is the most important part of the rotation." - Joe Morgan, Sunday Night Baseball 8-12-07
by gary varsho on May 5, 2008 12:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
so we shouldn't root against him
we should just root for him to get hurt?
I don’t think ANYONE on this forum is in the business of rooting against Cub players.
All i was suggesting was that I’d like to see a Manager not play favorites with veteran players, which he has time and time again through his 1+ year tenure. Whether it was minimally impactful decisions like starting Floyd over Murton or ones that barely averted danger (like letting Kendall start ahead of Soto for a month and a half) or ones that are hurting us right now (refusing to pull Soriano for defense or move him down in the lineup)
by DartmouthCubsFan on May 5, 2008 12:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And now you're wishing an injury.
Let’s get this straight:
1.)Don’t root against him, he’s all we have.
2.)Let’s just hope he gets injured.
Got it. Sound as bell, that is.
"I've always felt that starting pitching is the most important part of the rotation." - Joe Morgan, Sunday Night Baseball 8-12-07
by gary varsho on May 5, 2008 12:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The difference is
Hill can go to the minors, and Marquis can’t . Plus Marquis has walked people in more innings, so his control hasn’t be nearly as bad as Hill. From things I heard Piniella dislikes Marquis more then any Cubs pitcher. So I doubt he is playing favorites in this situation. If Marquis keeps pitching this crappy, he’s going to go to the pen, with Marshall or Gallagher going into the rotation.
by cubsfan25 on May 5, 2008 1:17 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Completely agree...
I can’t honestly believe that anyone would suggest that Piniella is playing favorites with Marquis. This is the same guy that Piniella almost didn’t carry on the playoff roster last year and had a spat with in spring training this year.
I fully believe that the Cubs got Lieber with the idea of trading Marquis at some point. I think that Marquis is the guy Piniella likes least of any player on the Cubs. With Hill, I think Piniella sees potential but prefers to let him work on things in the minors rather than trying to make adjustments in the big leagues.
by SouthernCub on May 5, 2008 1:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm beginning to wonder
how much of this decision was Lou’s to begin with…
"I've always felt that starting pitching is the most important part of the rotation." - Joe Morgan, Sunday Night Baseball 8-12-07
by gary varsho on May 5, 2008 1:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I believe
Piniella was on board with the decision because he knew Hill wasn’t right and needed to get stuff figured out. But I’m sure he understands that Marquis makes 16m this year and next year and can’t go to the minors. If things were even with Hill and Marquis, Hill would still be in the majors and Marquis in the minors. Remember Hill was untradeable this offseason, while Hendry was shopping Marquis to just about everybody and even brought in his replacement in Lieber. But Hendry and Piniella I hear are pretty close and don’t make moves unless both agree on it.
by cubsfan25 on May 5, 2008 1:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also keep in mind
Marquis struggling could have something to do with Hill going down to the minors. It comes down to a point were we just need to get better starting pitching. Marquis can’t go to the minors, and going to the bullpen is still going to hurt the game if he struggles. Maybe the Cubs feel they can’t have both guys struggling right now in the Major Leagues right now. So Hill is unlucky that he still has minor league options left and can go down and work on stuff, while Marquis has to stay on the big league roster. If contracts, minor league options were even I think Marquis would be the one in Triple A trying to work out his stuff, not Hill.
fully believe that the Cubs got Lieber with the idea of trading Marquis at some point. I think that Marquis is the guy Piniella likes least of any player on the Cubs.
Jim Hendry all but said that, he said we brought in Lieber because they thought they would trade another starting pitcher this offseason. He wasn’t looking to trade Zambrano, Lilly, Dempster, Hill, so it had to be Marquis or Marshall. But more likely Marquis since he had a major league contract a starting job in the rotation.
by cubsfan25 on May 5, 2008 1:44 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Do we know there's a difference?
Lou can tell Jim to send Hill to the minors and it can happen in a minute.
Lou can tell Jim to trade Marquis and don’t worry if he gets nothing back; that will take a few days.
by DGU on May 5, 2008 1:56 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
i wish our GM was telling the manager what to do
and not the other way around…
maybe someone could stop Pineilla from blowing out Marmol’s arm in relief
by DartmouthCubsFan on May 5, 2008 1:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm sure
Piniella doesn’t tell Hendry what to do. They just kinda work as a team, Piniella tells Jim what he thinks the needs to improve the roster. But Piniella never tells him who or what to trade, if that was true I’m sure Pie would have been traded for a quality player last offseason. But Hendry doesn’t tell him what line-ups to make or who to play or not to play either. As for Marmol give it time, if he’s still throwing a crazy amount of innings by the allstar break, then we can freak out. But when we start getting deeper starts(every starter we have has been 190-200 inning guys), and Howry/Wuertz pitch the way their capable of Marmol will get alot less work. Plus all the extra inning games also hasn’t helped much.
by cubsfan25 on May 5, 2008 2:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
you know what hasn't helped much
the innings Marmol keeps throwing in blowouts
he threw 3 innings this week in games that there was absolutely zero point in having him throw in, a 19-5 game and a 9-3 game in which he threw 2 innings
by DartmouthCubsFan on May 5, 2008 3:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So tell me....
When is your robot manager prototype going to be complete and out on the market for purchase by major league ballclubs?!?
by MDBNIU on May 5, 2008 3:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
you're not ready yet Blue Mike?
n/t
by DartmouthCubsFan on May 5, 2008 3:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
To bee fair
Him pitching in the 19-5 game was to get him work because it was Wednesday and Marmol hasn’t pitched since Friday. The pitching Saturday was pretty weird, but he threw just 24 pitches. So I don’t see it has a huge deal either, just could have screwed us last night if we needed Marmol.
by cubsfan25 on May 5, 2008 3:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's a fair point
although with how much he’s been used and how many times they’ve gotten him up and knowing you’re playing the next 4 days in a row against your top 2 rivals, dont you think he could’ve fairly assumed Marmol would be able to “get his work in” in the next day or so?
by DartmouthCubsFan on May 5, 2008 3:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Probably
but you don’t want him to rusty either. I recall Wednesday when Marmol had all those days off his control was really off. He didn’t walk all that many batters, but every count was like 2-0 or 3-0 before he would come back and strike out the hitter. Marmol is still pitching at this pace come late June, then I’ll be pretty concerned. But I think once our starters start going deeper in games, and Wuertz/Howry start pitching better Marmol innings will be cut down to 14-15 per month he was at last year(maybe less some months). I believe our starting pitchers only went 7 innings, 8 games this year, and nobody pitched 8 innings or 9 innings yet. Our starts have gone 5 innings or less in 10 starts this season. With our rotation having five guys currently who have all thrown 200 plus innings in their career, that should change. Plus Howry and Wuertz are good pitchers and shouldn’t suck like they have all season.
by cubsfan25 on May 5, 2008 4:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Plus
Lou can tell Jim to trade Marquis and don’t worry if he gets nothing back; that will take a few days.
At what cost? The Cubs weren’t willing to eat any money I heard this offseason, with him struggling so far this year. Some team might want the Cubs to eat 8-10m of the contract or maybe more.
by cubsfan25 on May 5, 2008 1:59 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I have no idea what the market for Marquis might be
but there are teams looking for pitching. I’ll be interested to hear what DeRoMyHero says in regards to whether or not Atlanta would know better than to take back Marquis.
by DGU on May 5, 2008 2:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Trade him
within the division so we get to hit against him..
"The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball"
by Bump Bailey on May 5, 2008 2:10 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
I would have done the same...
...if I was Lou. Marquis had a better chance of giving you servicable innings in that situation vs Hill. Also, since he already nuked the pen on Friday night, he couldn’t do it again early on Sunday.
Bottom line; when Hill loses it, he really loses it, with little chance of bouncing back if you keep him in.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
by MPH73 on May 5, 2008 2:12 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
can you cite an example?
of when Hill loses it he really loses it?
please…. because from what i’ve seen Rich hasn’t been given the opportunity to “really lose it”
If we look at Disaster Starts (Starts in which the pitcher allows more ER’s than IP, or 5 ER’s or more), Hill had 7 last year in 32 starts, Marquis had 9 in 33 starts. This year Hill had 1 going into that start and Marquis had 1
by DartmouthCubsFan on May 5, 2008 3:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't take...
...notes, but it just seems to me, that I would not have as much confidence in letting Hill go when he is struggling vs Marquis.
Just me observations and opinion.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
by MPH73 on May 5, 2008 3:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i think that opinion
might be framed by Pineilla’s handling of Rich. I think Pineilla certainly has that impression and tends to pull him immediately when he gets into trouble. Since Rich is often leaving the game after getting into a bit of trouble and not being allowed to work out of it, we tend to remember the bad and thus judge it as “when he loses it, he loses it”
by DartmouthCubsFan on May 5, 2008 3:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Could be part of it...
...but I am also basing it on my own judgment of how he reacts (body language, etc.) when he struggles. Hill has better stuff than Marquis, but I don’t think he has the capability to mentally fight through a bad inning to give you some servicable innings afterwords.
I could be wrong, but I agree with how Piniella has used him.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
by MPH73 on May 5, 2008 3:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Very simple
Sending Marquis down won’t help him. He is what he is, a mediocre innings-eater.
Last year, Hill showed promise. Right now he seems to be having mechanical problems. Sending him down might actually help him and the team when he returns.
by rlpete on May 5, 2008 2:14 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Plus
Sending Marquis down won’t help him. He is what he is, a mediocre innings-eater.
The Cubs can’t send Marquis down, if they take him off the roster they have to eat 16.2m and there’s no way in hell they will do that. Hill can be sent down and work on stuff, and be recalled anytime they want to.
by cubsfan25 on May 5, 2008 2:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hendry
has been trying to trade Marquis all offseason and probably still is. But if Hendry is going to eat some of the contract, I hear he wants a good player in return. Right now he’s not willing to eat 5-10m and get next to nothing in return. For example a few years ago he traded Latroy Hawkins ate the 05 season part of the contract(but Giants still had to pay 06), but got a young pitcher in Jerome Williams and a solid relief prospect in David Aardsma. Sadly Jerome Williams lost it in 06, and Aardsma never was the quality reliever in the major leagues so far. So if Hendry is going to eat some of the contract he wants something with some value in return, and nobody is giving that up right now.
by cubsfan25 on May 5, 2008 2:15 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Hill was a scapegoat
Lou wanted to make a point by sending Rich Hill down. Other players struggling he could have sent down could have been Pie but that wouldn’t have made a point.
Rich Hill had a guaranteed slot and someone who Chicago fans really thought would have a fantastic year.
I think in Lou’s mind this roster move is equivalent to sparking the team last year by arguing with the umpire. Rich Hill will be back up sooner than later I’m sure.
by ak123 on May 5, 2008 2:47 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Heavens to mergatroid
How is Rich Hill a scapegoat when he has been incapable of getting the ball over the plate since the start of Mesa and was single-handedly burning up the bullpen via his presence in the rotation? Was Lou Piniella supposed to stick with him and let him get absolutely torched start after start?!? Piniella pulled Hill after 2/3 rd’s of an inning in St. Louis because enough was enough and, more importantly, he was trying to win a ballgame against a 1st place divisional foe.
Hill is a talented pitcher that is messed up. The organization did the wisest thing possible for Hill AND the ballclub. Hopefully Hill gets things worked out at Iowa and is back once again being a valuable member of this pitching staff after the All Star break.
by MDBNIU on May 5, 2008 2:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
calm down, Boo-boo Bear.
When Hill struggled in the pre-season, people suggested he should go to Iowa; that idea was shot-down by many.
Yes, Hill needs help. He’ll get it in Iowa. But it also lets Lou send a message—get your sh!t right, or you will be routed around.
I’d bet money that if Marquis had melted down before Hill, Marquis would be on the DL, and Hill would still be here, working on his game in the show.
2008: The year we put it all together.
by drewishdrewid on May 5, 2008 3:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hill
pitching in Iowa will let him be able to work though his struggles, without costing the Cubs a game. Like I said before if Marquis and others were pitching lights out Hill would have a longer leash. But when other guys are struggling and have to stay on the big league roster, the Cubs can’t afford Hill to work through his problems. It’s not really fair to Hill but thats how baseball works especially on a contending team.
by cubsfan25 on May 5, 2008 3:51 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Hit the nail on the head
Some also fail to recognize that this is the best possible course of action for Rich Hill too. There is little shame in having a hiccup in your career that results in a trip back to the minors. Hopefully what ails Hill can be cured and he will be back better than ever at some point. Nobody, to include PIniella, is writing off Hill.
by MDBNIU on May 5, 2008 3:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I seriously believe Lou killed Hill
First I am catching up after a day off but I have posted recently about
my increasing frustrations with Lou. I think skipping Hill’s start and throwing at
the Cardinals in a HUGE game on 9 days off was a disaster waiting to happen.
I don’t think sending Hill down is the answer. Showing him a little support early in the
season might have been. I don’t see how Hill comes back. Guy was always fragile and stubborn but Lou’s version of tough love is a disaster. Soriano can strike out on 3 pitches to start games and be good player, but if Hill starts bad he is on the next plane to Iowa.
In addition to screwing up Hill and Murton, Lou has always destroyed their trade value.
Lou is the reverse Dusty ( I tried to post this yesterday but I think it never made it). Dusty
wanted to players best friend, Lou thinks that terrorizing younger players in particular will make them better. I would like something in between. I think the Cubs have enough talent to get past this but if Lou keeps this up we might not.
by Doggie Stalker on May 5, 2008 4:52 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Earth to Doggie Stalker
See Geovany Soto, see Ryan Theriot.
by MDBNIU on May 5, 2008 5:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mechanics vs. Stuff
Marquis’s problem is his stuff. You know what you are getting with him. He is hit/miss, hot/cold.
Hill’s problem is mechanical. He has had success in the past. He is doing things differently than he has in the past and it is causing him problems. He still has options left and can be sent down to iron out these problems. I suspect we will see the “old” Rich Hill back by June or July.
In the middle of a good time, Truth gave me her icy kiss. Look around, you must be joking. All that way, all that way for this -Oysterband
by Ross on May 5, 2008 5:11 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Maybe they are trying to get Rich Hill
right in the Minors so they will increase his trade value so he can be part of trade in acquiring a #1 or #2 starter before the trade deadline. I don’t believe Rich Hill is considered untouchable anymore. If they really want to win this year they are going to need to upgrade the rotation.
Marquis’s problem is not his stuff it is that he loses concentration and his mental toughness, which Ron Santo mentions on a regular basis when he pitches.
by cubdreamer on May 5, 2008 5:16 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Hill
isn’t going to be traded. Hill is still in the Cubs plans this year, all he has to do is go down to Triple A and pitch well for 3-4 starts(with good control), Then he will most likely get called up. I don’t think the Cubs or Piniella are giving up on Hill at all, he just needs to work out his control issues. With other pitchers like Marquis and even Lilly not pitching great, we can’t afford Hill working out his problems in the big leagues, The other guys have to work out their problems in the big leagues because they have major league contracts and don’t have minor league options like Hill.
by cubsfan25 on May 5, 2008 5:29 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
They both belong in the minors
IMO, start Gallagher
"Have You heard of the Boom on Mizar 5?"
by Grockcubs on May 5, 2008 9:23 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
off topic
but dartmouth cubs fan…..i am also a dartmouth cubs fan (‘05). hit me up at bearsjoe(at)hotmail(dot)com and let’s exchange info and maybe even real names.
by GreenLantern411 on May 5, 2008 9:38 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
The Cubs have a off day Thursday
So they might skip Marquis this weekend, and go with Lilly Fri, Dempster Sat and Zambrano on Sun.
by cubsfan25 on May 5, 2008 10:23 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Cubs By The Numbers
Cubs By The Numbers is a history of the ballclub by uniform number, but the biographies help trace the history of our beloved team in a new way. For everyone who's a Cubs fan, anyone who ever wore the uniform is like family. Cubs By The Numbers reintroduces readers to some of their long-lost ancestors, even ones they think they already know.
Click here to order your copy, available now!
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
