SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
How Good Is (Was) Rich Hill?
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 27, 2015 19:09:58 GMT -5
Eric, I think your comparison to 1s and 2s is helpful, but we're trying to determine whether Hill's performance in those four games was a fluke. To do so, shouldn't you be looking at all performances by non-1 and 2 starters to see the frequency with which they performed at a similar level? Thank you for being able to state my criticism of this succinctly.
|
|
|
Post by Smittyw on Oct 27, 2015 19:18:44 GMT -5
How good was he? Really f'ing good.
How good is he? ... Not that good.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 27, 2015 19:39:23 GMT -5
Eric, I think your comparison to 1s and 2s is helpful, but we're trying to determine whether Hill's performance in those four games was a fluke. To do so, shouldn't you be looking at all performances by non-1 and 2 starters to see the frequency with which they performed at a similar level? Or, more precisely, look at all four-game-stretches of this quality to see how often they are put up by good pitchers and how often they're fluked into by mediocre pitchers. We already know that two of the dozen or so stretches identified to date were put up by guys who I would characterize as mid-rotation types (Hendricks, Happ), and there may be more. I also think Hill's stretch has some notable distinguishing features which make this kind of comp-based analysis misleading. He started his first major-league game since 2009 and did so with an entirely different arm angle than he had been using the last few years in relief. On one hand, that's encouraging, because this is a totally different Rich Hill, and so his pre-2015 results may be less relevant. On the other hand, that makes me take his performance with a grain of salt, since his opponents likely had just about nothing in terms of prep work.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Oct 28, 2015 9:29:50 GMT -5
Bill James pointed out that the stat line from a single game by a rookie pitcher, like Roger Clemens' 15 SO, 0 BB game, can actually tell you something about him. But there is no single-game stat line by a hitter that could be as meaningful. Even a 4 HR game, because he might have gotten lucky and seen 4 cripples. But you can't fan 15 and walk 0 by being lucky. That happens when you execute over 100 pitches, incrementally. I'm focusing on the point to support your premise. I don't see this as a valid comparison, as Roger was a rookie on the rise with High Reward and No risk and under contract, while Hill is clearly on the back nine of the back nine of his career and the last time he pitched more than 58 IP in a season was 2007. He's Hi reward Hi risk and not under contract. Even if he's who you think he can be how will his arm be able to hold up to even 100 IP this season. You can't simple say piggy back him on Buchholz because you cannot do that. And whiles it's safe to say both will be injured next season predicting when or whether its at the same time, overalaps or fits perfectly together is an impossible task and ignores roster contruction and it's limits.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Oct 28, 2015 10:17:11 GMT -5
Bill James pointed out that the stat line from a single game by a rookie pitcher, like Roger Clemens' 15 SO, 0 BB game, can actually tell you something about him. But there is no single-game stat line by a hitter that could be as meaningful. Even a 4 HR game, because he might have gotten lucky and seen 4 cripples. But you can't fan 15 and walk 0 by being lucky. That happens when you execute over 100 pitches, incrementally. I'm focusing on the point to support your premise. I don't see this as a valid comparison, as Roger was a rookie on the rise with High Reward and No risk and under contract, while Hill is clearly on the back nine of the back nine of his career and the last time he pitched more than 58 IP in a season was 2007. He's Hi reward Hi risk and not under contract. Even if he's who you think he can be how will his arm be able to hold up to even 100 IP this season. You can't simple say piggy back him on Buchholz because you cannot do that. And whiles it's safe to say both will be injured next season predicting when or whether its at the same time, overalaps or fits perfectly together is an impossible task and ignores roster contruction and it's limits. This is (almost) a no win for the RS...although we can match any offer another team would give him, there really is no spot for him. Even if you give him a #5 spot in any rotation, there is no way he will go the distance without his arm falling off & HE know this. I guess a mid market team will let him go till he can't go anymore & then pick someone off a waiver wire. It's a shame as he can possibly give you a 3 or 4 performance till July or Aug.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Oct 28, 2015 12:55:50 GMT -5
Eric, I think your comparison to 1s and 2s is helpful, but we're trying to determine whether Hill's performance in those four games was a fluke. To do so, shouldn't you be looking at all performances by non-1 and 2 starters to see the frequency with which they performed at a similar level? Thank you for being able to state my criticism of this succinctly. I don't know if it's a criticism so much as an issue of the availability of resources to do that study. Do you (or a team considering whether to bid for Hill) want to fund (with time or money) a study like that? What do you expect to "prove"? That there is some risk that #3-#5 starters will have such a streak? How small of a risk would make you feel better? Put another way, how much more money are you willing to venture based on how much of a smaller chance? I think the study Eric proposed is the one a team really needs... what is Hill's reward? High reward players are extremely rare, and almost invaluable once you find them. That's really what a team invests in, on the theory that if you have enough high reward players, the ones that do pay off far beyond your investment will take you further in wins and high-leverage situations than investing in low risk players, where the market knows how much to pay. Even with the risk of injury, new arm angle and so on (all good points), that seems (to me) a matter of risk not reward. Potentially, these are risks that will keep Hill's market price even further suppressed, making Hill an even better investment, if you happen to get the reward.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 28, 2015 13:37:35 GMT -5
Eric, I think your comparison to 1s and 2s is helpful, but we're trying to determine whether Hill's performance in those four games was a fluke. To do so, shouldn't you be looking at all performances by non-1 and 2 starters to see the frequency with which they performed at a similar level? Thank you for being able to state my criticism of this succinctly. Oh, I'm well aware of this oversight. What I wanted to do was find the best group of pitchers where this performance essentially never happened. I decided to start with pitchers ranked 36-45 out of 150, which I regard as below-average #2 starters, for two reasons. First, because we're more interested in Hill if he was indeed pitching like a #2. But it was also my guess as to the group where that performance would be rare. Had it turned out that there had been a bunch of guys in that group who had four-game streaks as good as Hill's, I would have only continued the study in the opposite direction. I would have next looked at 46-55, above-average #3s, and then worked my way down the list until I got a couple of null groups in a row, and I would have never bothered with the #2s. Had my guess been right, and there had been just a few such stretches, I would have gone both ways, but first down the list to the 3's, and then up, to see how often the 2's do it. However, there was essentially nobody in my first group who had such a stretch. So the decision to go up the list instead of down was made for me. It only takes me 15 minutes or so to grab the data for a group of 10 pitchers. So after I do the ordinary aces (everyone but ultra-aces Kershaw, Arrieta, Greinke, Scherzer, and Keuchel; the difference between Keuchel and #6 Carrasco in this metric is larger than the difference between Carrasco and #16 Harvey), I will indeed start working my way down the list in other direction, to be thorough. I hope to do all of the 3rd starters. I'm guessing the result will be so negative that it won't be worth going to the #4 starters (below-average pitchers). But stranger things have happened ... it may be that the low-2's were a fluke group and that there's one guy in each of the next 6 groups of 10 that did this. That would change our conclusions somewhat. But it would be at the level of adjectives modifying "unlikely." It's convenient for our brains that Wade Miley is the guy who was exactly league-average in this metric. Would folks agree that if Wade Miley had thrown those four games at some point in this season, our brains would have burst at least ever so slightly? I can't remember a guy of his well-established caliber ever doing that. (Then again, my memory for specific games is actually below-average for a fan.) Had he done so, folks like me would have been all over his pitch/fx data, looking for a real reason. No one would have said, sometimes a guy like Wade Miley just does that. (That may be true, but no one would think so.)
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 28, 2015 13:57:36 GMT -5
I said it in another thread, but will say it again. If you're on board for Clay B's salary, you should be on board for Hill. One guy is high risk that will cost 13 mil. One guy is high risk that will be much cheaper and has always pitched well when healthy. Both are likely to be on the DL next year. Rich Hill has averaged 17 innings a season over the last six years, while Buchholz has averaged 140. Hill's also four years older, at a not-so-young 35 years of age. It's ridiculous to think they present the same level of risk. There's no doubting that Hill was absolutely fantastic in his four games for us in 2015. But between the age, injury history, general inconsistency and changing of arm slots (much of this is related to his health status), and small sample size at his 2015 dominating level, there's no way I give him more than a one year deal. I would be willing to pack it with some rather hefty incentives, though. Except that if you have a figure for what you are willing to pay him for one year that still sounds attractive to him if divided by 2, you do that. You cut your AAV and hence your hit against the tax limit in half. Imagine that the Sox were one of several teams bidding for Hill after his American Legion stint. One of several teams with a psychic who knew what he was about to do in MLB! And imagine that the Sox had a reason to believe their psychic was infallible, while the others had only an 80-90% certainty. You would have offered him 2/$12M. And you would have come out ahead, even if he never pitches again.
That should be the starting point, when really easy incentives are included*. (Further incentives, of course, should be in there, too). It sounds crazy, but that's 1.5 WAR, and that's half a season of an average-to-below average #2 starter, which appears to be his talent floor from last year. That gives you a lot of leeway in terms of lesser performance or time lost to injury. You break even if you get two half-seasons of average or below-average #4 starts. *You could do something like 1/$4M, with a $2M bonus for 1 GS, and a second year at $6M that vests with 5. And then further bonuses in each year for 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 GS, and for GF (in case he ends up as the closer, which is certainly a possibility.)
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 28, 2015 15:31:25 GMT -5
However, there was essentially nobody in my first group who had such a stretch. So the decision to go up the list instead of down was made for me. I don't know that that's a fair characterization. In your first post, you had J.A. Happ (he of the career 4.13 ERA, 4.20 FIP, 4.21 SIERA) and Liam Hendriks (who has been legitimately very good in his first 260 IP, but never made a BA or BP top 100 list). But you excluded Happ for reasons that remain unclear to me and characterized Hendriks as (and I'm paraphrasing here) the exception that proves the rule.
|
|
|
Post by bosty03 on Oct 28, 2015 16:39:20 GMT -5
Eric, I do hope that you are willing to conduct the same study moving in the other direction, and if I had even a modicum of statistical wherewithal, I would do it myself or offer to help you. There are two different pieces of information that it seems we can glean from what you are doing and what you've indicated you're planning to do. By comparing Hill to some of the best pitchers, we can get a better sense of his ceiling, which is useful and gives us a measure of how much it might be worth spending on him. But, to me, the comparison to the lesser pitchers is more important, because it would allow us to have some degree of certainty regarding whether we can conclude, from those four outstanding starts, that Rich Hill is good at all. The comparison to the better pitchers seems of relatively little value until you can show that few (if any) of the 3-5 starters had any four-start stretches that good. I am not, however, questioning your hypothesis; I would be floored if you found many examples of comparable pitching from the 3-5 starters.
I don't want to turn this into an Eric adulation thread, but I do want to add a separate note on my appreciation for your work. My earlier post was my first ever on SoxProspects or SoSH. I've have been a lurker on SoSH since the winter of 2003/2004, when SoSH was by far the best place to track the Sox's failed (thankfully) pursuit of a trade for Alex Rodriguez. At that time, SoSH was filled with a number of posters, including Eric, who were using data in insightful and interesting ways. Over time, and especially since Eric stopped posting on SoSH, the level of discourse has plummeted. I now find that board almost unreadable, especially compared to here. When I discovered about a year ago that Eric was posting on SoxProspects, I was very excited. Your posts have not disappointed and, I think, push everyone here to think more critically (in a good way) about how and what to post. So thank you for devoting so much time to analyzing the Sox and making your analysis available to all of us lurkers (and posters) who want to become more knowledgeable about the team we all love.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 28, 2015 17:02:20 GMT -5
However, there was essentially nobody in my first group who had such a stretch. So the decision to go up the list instead of down was made for me.I don't know that that's a fair characterization. In your first post, you had J.A. Happ (he of the career 4.13 ERA, 4.20 FIP, 4.21 SIERA) and Liam Hendriks (who has been legitimately very good in his first 260 IP, but never made a BA or BP top 100 list). But you excluded Happ for reasons that remain unclear to me and characterized Hendriks as (and I'm paraphrasing here) the exception that proves the rule. I excluded Happ because of the decent probability that he's someone like Hill himself, rather than a member of the comp group. The Pirates targeted him to add to their stretch-drive rotation, and he was hugely better than he had been. The odds seem very high to me that they did something to make him better, something they had in mind when they traded for him. So that leaves two stretches out of 240, and one is Cueto's first 4 starts of the year, which were in line with his past work, as the rest of the season was not. (The correlation of Cueto's start number to his xFIP for that game has r = .31, p = .08, which is extraordinarily strong for a start-by-start correlation. The worsening seasonal trend in his 4-game average of xFIP has r = .62, p = .0035. His xFIP was 2.72 in his first 4 starts and 4.56 over his last 7.) If we exclude Cueto as another guy for whom we have reason to believe became a different pitcher over the course of the season, then we have a single 4-game stretch in 208 possibilities. I believe that's low enough to make looking at better pitchers the next step. But I would agree that it's not so low that we don't want to also look at lesser pitchers, as I explained. Edit: It is, of course, Kyle Hendricks that we're talking about. He was 27th in MLB in SIERA among 250 starters. If we're going to knock him down to mid-rotation starter, as you did above, based on his lack of prospect pedigree (which itself is misleading, because he lost his prospect eligibility in his breakout season), shouldn't we ve doing the same for deGrom? Or the entire career of Buehrle? Whether Hill can do this again is our next question, and is similar to the question of whether Hendricks can continue to outperform his pedigree. The sole purpose of this study is to look at samples of 15 to 33 starts at various levels of talent to see, empirically, how often they produce stretches of 4 starts of this given quality. I am excluding pitchers like Happ and Cueto for whom we have good reason to believe that the 15 to 33 games are not in fact a sample from a single talent level.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Oct 28, 2015 20:15:04 GMT -5
I think it's important to remember for anyone who is looking for comparisons to worse pitchers who had a similar 4 game stretch that the only reason Hill's run ended at 4 games was because the season ended.
That's obviously not a point in his favor, but it would not necessarily be accurate to compare him to other low quality pitchers that had 4 great starts and then turned into pumpkins again. (seasonal reference intended)
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Nov 2, 2015 13:22:22 GMT -5
Looks like he will be elsewhere next season. According to the globe
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Nov 2, 2015 13:22:59 GMT -5
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 2, 2015 14:01:06 GMT -5
That's Peter Abraham's opinion, which I would regard as meaningless. Why can't the Sox promise him a rotation spot? They've already promised one to Kelly or Wright? There's a law against trading Wade Miley? He's not always an idiot. But he seldom thinks things through at all.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 2, 2015 14:20:14 GMT -5
That's Peter Abraham's opinion, which I would regard as meaningless. Why can't the Sox promise him a rotation spot? They've already promised one to Kelly or Wright? There's a law against trading Wade Miley? He's not always an idiot. But he seldom thinks things through at all. Both ProJo writers also presumed the same on their podcast at least. I take that opinion as well. The point is that they're not going to get rid of pitchers to open up enough room in the rotation to sign Rich Hill. They already will have to make room for the "top of the rotation starter" that Dombrowski has said they're going to try and acquire (which could be Kelly to the bullpen or something, but still, it's removing SP depth). Assume this new acquisition, Buchholz, Porcello, Miley, Rodriguez. Are you really going to move one of those pieces just for the sake of bringing in Hill? It's not crazy to think they might move Miley, but until they do, why is one an idiot (the implication of your post) if he thinks it unlikely a player who wants to start will sign with the Red Sox until that time? The only way Hill comes back, imo, is if the market for his services is poor enough that nobody is willing to give him a legitimate shot at making their rotation. And I'd define "legitimate shot" as such that if you did a roster projection at the time he signs, he'd either make the team or be one of 2 or 3 guys who are in a battle for an open rotation spot. Hill threw 94 innings this past season. He threw 48 in 2014 and 38.2 the year before. I don't know why you'd clear out rotation depth to make room for him. Even if he's as good as you seem to think he suddenly has become, can he be counted on for more than 100 or so innings, if even that? The last time he started 10 games was 2010! Is Rich Hill this offseason's Steven Wright for you? I mean, we all have our binkies, but I really don't see why it's so crazy to think that the Red Sox aren't willing to move multiple starting pitchers just to make themselves an attractive landing spot for Hill, whose preference to find a starting gig has been made clear.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,983
|
Post by jimoh on Nov 2, 2015 16:12:33 GMT -5
Can I ask how innings limits apply to older pitchers? The rule about slowly ramping up a pitchers' innings applies to those who are 18-25, right? Rich Hill has pitched 1200 innings in mlb and milb, and warmed up a kajillion times. I know he's been very fragile, and agree with you that he's hard to to a risk with, but we don't treat him like a 21YO, do we? What are the guidelines for an older, much-injured pitcher.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 2, 2015 16:49:11 GMT -5
I think that's beside the point I'm making, actually, although it's relevant on its own.
Look at it this way: The last time he threw 100 innings was 2010 (104.0). The last time he threw even close to 100 innings before that was 2007 (195.0). The next year, 2008, is when he basically forgot how to pitch a baseball to the point it was thought he had Steve Blass disease (his struggles were so mighty that he was demoted all the way down to Rookie ball to figure out the problem).
The point isn't just an increase in innings from the prior year or two issue. The point is that he has absolutely zero track record in the past eight years that he can handle a starter's workload. While the lack of track record that he can be as good as he was at the end of this season (and let's be fair, he was very good in Pawtucket as well - not as good as he was in Boston, but four of his five starts were very good down there too, save for his final start, when he got lit up by Buffalo) is one concern, to me the bigger issue is that there's even less track record to suggest he can be a starter in the major leagues over a 150-inning season.
Is it worth trying to sign him? Absolutely, and I'd love if the Red Sox did. But he won't sign given the current roster situation and his stated preference to start, and I think it'd be nuts to clear out starting pitching depth to create a situation in which he would sign, which here would mean to move the likes of Wade Miley. As Tim and Brian said on their podcast, which made great sense to me, the type of roster situation in which he'd fit would be like the Sox entering 2012, when they had competition for the final couple of spots in their rotation between Felix Doubront, Daniel Bard, Alfredo Aceves and friends.
As neat as it is to see how rare that four-start stretch was, there's no way I'm promising a guy a chance at a spot in my starting rotation who hasn't thrown more than 104 innings since 2007 if I need to trade away league average starting pitching to get him under contract.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 2, 2015 17:14:35 GMT -5
Is it worth trying to sign him? Absolutely, and I'd love if the Red Sox did. But he won't sign given the current roster situation and his stated preference to start, and I think it'd be nuts to clear out starting pitching depth to create a situation in which he would sign, which here would mean to move the likes of Wade Miley. As Tim and Brian said on their podcast, which made great sense to me, the type of roster situation in which he'd fit would be like the Sox entering 2012, when they had competition for the final couple of spots in their rotation between Felix Doubront, Daniel Bard, Alfredo Aceves and friends. As neat as it is to see how rare that four-start stretch was, there's no way I'm promising a guy a chance at a spot in my starting rotation who hasn't thrown more than 104 innings since 2007 if I need to trade away league average starting pitching to get him under contract. I sort of disagree with the bolded. Yes, I think he absolutely would prefer to have an undisputed rotation spot, but I also think if the Red Sox gave him enough guaranteed money, he would happily overlook Boston's roster situation (partially because the fact that the Red Sox were willing to guarantee him so much money suggests that they want him in their rotation). In other words, they don't really need to clear out starting depth or promise him a rotation spot before they sign him as long as they're at least in the picture in terms of most guaranteed money. Practically, what that means is that, if they think he's as good as Eric does and thus offers lots of surplus value, they can sign him first (by just outbidding the market) and figure out the moving pieces later. That could mean not going after a top-end-rotation-type and investing their cash/prospects in beefing up the position players/bullpen. That could mean adding a top-end-rotation-type and trading Miley or Buchholz or Porcello or even just going into ST with Hill as a sixth starter/bullpen option. But they don't necessarily have to figure out how all the moving pieces fit before they sign him.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 2, 2015 23:19:20 GMT -5
That's Peter Abraham's opinion, which I would regard as meaningless. Why can't the Sox promise him a rotation spot? They've already promised one to Kelly or Wright? There's a law against trading Wade Miley? He's not always an idiot. But he seldom thinks things through at all. Both ProJo writers also presumed the same on their podcast at least. I take that opinion as well. I'm unaware of the principle by which, when multiple baseball beat writers state something as true, it means ... anything at all. I've been arguing all winter that Kelly and Wright probably project to be a bit better than Miley (between the two of them, quite likely), and that therefore Miley is not just expendable, but a prime trade chip. Any team that is worried about having to end up filling rotation spots with guys that are below replacement level would love to have a guy who can be penciled in to be league-average for the next three years. He is much less valuable to a team where he looks like the sixth or seventh best pitcher, with one or two guys (depending on whether they deal one of Owens or Johnson) gaining on him. All you're doing by signing Hill is giving him that 5th starter spot, the one that arguably we could comfortably be giving to either Kelly or Wright. I thought I made it clear that what was idiotic was the assertion that, given that Hill would want a rotation spot promised to him (itself debatable as jmei points out), we simply could not do that. If he'd written that the Sox seemed unlikely to be able to do that because it would very likely mean trading Wade Miley, and it was very unclear whether they'd want to do that -- well, that would have been a correct analysis of the actual situation, combined with some arguably inaccurate but certainly excusable player assessments. I would never call someone an idiot (and perhaps "lazy and lacking all self-respect" would have been more accurate) for that kind of statement. But all that Abrahams needed to do to figure out that promising Hill first crack at a rotation spot is in fact possible rather than impossible was to write down a current SP depth chart, and look at it with half a dozen brain cells functioning. I love informed debate. I apologize for it, but I admit, I have less than zero tolerance for people who don't bother to think things through, and hence fail to correctly identify or assess the basic situation. You can't have an informed debate without starting there.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,983
|
Post by jimoh on Nov 3, 2015 5:52:40 GMT -5
[...] I love informed debate. I apologize for it, but I admit, I have less than zero tolerance for people who don't bother to think things through, and hence fail to correctly identify or assess the basic situation. You can't have an informed debate without starting there. Thank you for my morning laugh. Every phrase is a classic.
|
|
|
Post by deepjohn on Nov 3, 2015 10:20:45 GMT -5
Is it worth trying to sign him? Absolutely, and I'd love if the Red Sox did. But he won't sign given the current roster situation and his stated preference to start, and I think it'd be nuts to clear out starting pitching depth to create a situation in which he would sign, which here would mean to move the likes of Wade Miley. As Tim and Brian said on their podcast, which made great sense to me, the type of roster situation in which he'd fit would be like the Sox entering 2012, when they had competition for the final couple of spots in their rotation between Felix Doubront, Daniel Bard, Alfredo Aceves and friends. As neat as it is to see how rare that four-start stretch was, there's no way I'm promising a guy a chance at a spot in my starting rotation who hasn't thrown more than 104 innings since 2007 if I need to trade away league average starting pitching to get him under contract. I sort of disagree with the bolded. Yes, I think he absolutely would prefer to have an undisputed rotation spot, but I also think if the Red Sox gave him enough guaranteed money, he would happily overlook Boston's roster situation (partially because the fact that the Red Sox were willing to guarantee him so much money suggests that they want him in their rotation). In other words, they don't really need to clear out starting depth or promise him a rotation spot before they sign him as long as they're at least in the picture in terms of most guaranteed money. Practically, what that means is that, if they think he's as good as Eric does and thus offers lots of surplus value, they can sign him first (by just outbidding the market) and figure out the moving pieces later. That could mean not going after a top-end-rotation-type and investing their cash/prospects in beefing up the position players/bullpen. That could mean adding a top-end-rotation-type and trading Miley or Buchholz or Porcello or even just going into ST with Hill as a sixth starter/bullpen option. But they don't necessarily have to figure out how all the moving pieces fit before they sign him. Agree with jmei here. Given the extremely high reward here, both parties should rationally resolve any risk with money not stipulations. Supposed promises of being guaranteed a spot in a rotation are highly inefficient. More importantly, does Hill himself believe that given the chance to compete for a starting spot, he can succeed? (Hill's various quotes suggest that he does.) So will the Red Sox then let him compete with Miley, Kelly, Wright, et al for a spot, where Hill has some likelihood of emerging as a 1-2 pitcher? Two things: 1) Hill has among the best "character makeup" (which the Sox know and value perhaps more than other teams); www.masslive.com/redsox/index.ssf/2015/09/boston_red_sox_should_sign_ric.html2) Hill has among the best "pure stuff," (at least as measured by vertical and horizontal movement). sonsofsamhorn.com/baseball/teams/al-east/boston-red-sox/red-sox-starter-rich-hill-can-still-pitch/My two cents, I think signing Hill, on terms that Hill is happy with, should be an easy deal to negotiate.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Nov 3, 2015 11:39:34 GMT -5
I've heard that Kelly doesn't want to move to the BP. I believe that for the best of the team, they simply have to tell him he IS going to the BP, end of story. Whether he is a closer or just a late inning reliever, we'll figure that out in ST.....Trade Miley & parts for #2....I think Hill would be well worth the sign, as we have depth in Pawtucket as other teams may not have. We simply don't have to have him pitch 180 innings as some other team may need if they give him a rotation spot.....
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Nov 5, 2015 15:40:27 GMT -5
“@jmastrodonato: I’m hearing Red Sox will not sign free agent LHP Rich Hill before Friday’s deadline.. 29 IP, 36 K, 5 BB, 1.65 ERA — should be attractive SP”
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 5, 2015 16:24:09 GMT -5
Crazy idea - a QO for Hill?
|
|
|