PDA

View Full Version : Rich Hill versus John Danks


ndgt10
08-28-2007, 08:40 PM
Who has the brighter future? I'm watching Hill tonight and he is simply overpowering the Brewers hitters.

chaerulez
08-28-2007, 08:42 PM
3 runs in 6 innings is overpowering?

oeo
08-28-2007, 08:54 PM
Who has the brighter future? I'm watching Hill tonight and he is simply overpowering the Brewers hitters.

John Danks: 22.
Rich Hill: 27.

'Nuff said.

ndgt10
08-28-2007, 09:08 PM
3 runs in 6 innings is overpowering?
9 K's in 7 innings isn't?

cbrownson13
08-28-2007, 09:12 PM
9 K's in 7 innings isn't?


If that's the case, Javier Vazquez REALLY overpowered the Red Sox with 10 K's in 6 innings.

Myrtle72
08-28-2007, 09:30 PM
9 K's in 7 innings isn't?

If there is anything I have learned from the 07 Sox, it's that it doesn't matter how many hits, strikes, runs, etc you get, if you don't get the final product of a W then it's all meaningless. To me.

ndgt10
08-28-2007, 09:30 PM
If there is anything I have learned from the 07 Sox, it's that it doesn't matter how many hits, strikes, runs, etc you get, if you don't get the final product of a W then it's all meaningless. To me.
Hill is in line for the W.

kittle42
08-28-2007, 09:35 PM
Who has the brighter furture? I don't know. Who would I take right now? Hill 10 times out of 10.

balke
08-28-2007, 09:35 PM
How does Hill in anyway have anything whatsoever to do with Danks? Why would you contrast and compare the 2?

kittle42
08-28-2007, 09:38 PM
How does Hill in anyway have anything whatsoever to do with Danks? Why would you contrast and compare the 2?

For the same reason you'd compare and contrast Jose Contreras and Jeff Suppan!

ndgt10
08-28-2007, 09:42 PM
How does Hill in anyway have anything whatsoever to do with Danks? Why would you contrast and compare the 2?
1) Both pitch in Chicago
2) Both are left handed pitchers early in their MLB career
3) Both have decent fastballs and above average curveballs
4) Both have good mound presence
5) Both have pretty high ceilings

kittle42
08-28-2007, 09:51 PM
1) Both pitch in Chicago
2) Both are left handed pitchers early in their MLB career
3) Both have decent fastballs and above average curveballs
4) Both have good mound presence
5) Both have pretty high ceilings

Danks is more likely to acquire whiplash from watching the homers he gives up fly out of the park.

WhiteSox5187
08-28-2007, 11:39 PM
I'd take Hill now, but since Danks is younger I'd say he has the brighter future. I'd have no problem if Danks can develop into the type of pitcher that Rich Hill is...preferably by next year.

TDog
08-29-2007, 12:01 AM
9 K's in 7 innings isn't?

Mark Salas does better than that against the Sox in 10 minutes of throwing batting practice.

But seriously, it wasn't that long ago that people thought Matt Clement was overpowering.

WhiteSox5187
08-29-2007, 12:23 AM
Mark Salas does better than that against the Sox in 10 minutes of throwing batting practice.

But seriously, it wasn't that long ago that people thought Matt Clement was overpowering.
I never thought he was overpowering but until he took that rocket line drive off of his head he was a good pitcher. He's never been the same since then, he changed his mechanics and really who could blame him?

chaerulez
08-29-2007, 12:33 AM
Hill was very good today, but I take overpowering to mean close to no hit type stuff. Like something Santana or Webb throw at you.

And Hill is pretty old for a second year player, not saying he doesn't have a high ceiling, but he's not exactly a prospect. For long term, I would rather have Danks but right now Hill is the better pitcher.

oeo
08-29-2007, 07:15 AM
5) Both have pretty high ceilings

That's the thing, HIll has probably already reached his ceiling or is pretty damn close to it. He's already 27, he's not the young, up-and-coming pitcher the media leads you to believe he is (not a Cole Hamels, Felix Hernandez, Jered Weaver, etc.).

And BTW, I've got a feeling that Danks could shut down those weak NL lineups, too.

Sockinchisox
08-29-2007, 08:43 AM
That's the thing, HIll has probably already reached his ceiling or is pretty damn close to it. He's already 27, he's not the young, up-and-coming pitcher the media leads you to believe he is (not a Cole Hamels, Felix Hernandez, Jered Weaver, etc.).

And BTW, I've got a feeling that Danks could shut down those weak NL lineups, too.

The Brewers aren't exactly a weak hitting lineup but I see your point. If Danks gets his change better/learns to get it over he'll be a dominant pitcher, Hill is all fastball-fastball-curveball-fastball-curveball. If his curve doesn't work he's screwed because nothing else he has is overpowering or tricky.

kittle42
08-29-2007, 10:09 AM
And BTW, I've got a feeling that Danks could shut down those weak NL lineups, too.

Danks v. NL:

14.1 IP; 9 ER; 0-1; 10 BB; 16 K; 5.65 ERA

Yup, he really mowed 'em down.

Yes, the NL is an inferior league to the AL generally the past few years. But the "Everything NL sucks" crowd around here is getting pretty ridiculous.

oeo
08-29-2007, 11:19 AM
Danks v. NL:

14.1 IP; 9 ER; 0-1; 10 BB; 16 K; 5.65 ERA

Yup, he really mowed 'em down.

Yes, the NL is an inferior league to the AL generally the past few years. But the "Everything NL sucks" crowd around here is getting pretty ridiculous.

I'm not in that 'crowd.' But, if you watched that game yesterday, the pitches the Brewers were swinging at were ridiculous. Time after time they'd go after the high heater at their necks.

Not everything in the NL sucks, but it is pretty bad. Not to mention the lack of a DH, makes every lineup that much weaker.

PatK
08-29-2007, 11:28 AM
The Brewers aren't exactly a weak hitting lineup but I see your point. If Danks gets his change better/learns to get it over he'll be a dominant pitcher, Hill is all fastball-fastball-curveball-fastball-curveball. If his curve doesn't work he's screwed because nothing else he has is overpowering or tricky.

Exactly. Hill has to have his curve working or he gets hammered.

I'd take Hill over Danks the way they are currently pitching, but Danks has more potential.

CashMan
08-29-2007, 11:37 AM
Danks v. NL:

14.1 IP; 9 ER; 0-1; 10 BB; 16 K; 5.65 ERA

Yup, he really mowed 'em down.

Yes, the NL is an inferior league to the AL generally the past few years. But the "Everything NL sucks" crowd around here is getting pretty ridiculous.
\

This is what like 2-3 starts? Let him pitch an entire year against the NL central and see what his ERA is then.

goon
08-29-2007, 12:24 PM
I'm not in that 'crowd.' But, if you watched that game yesterday, the pitches the Brewers were swinging at were ridiculous. Time after time they'd go after the high heater at their necks.

100% correct and I'm surprised no one mentioned this until the #20 post, did anyone actually watch that game last night? The Brewers probably swung at 20 balls around the letters or higher, in fact, they swung at just about every pitch they saw, it was pathetic.

WhiteSox5187
08-29-2007, 12:55 PM
100% correct and I'm surprised no one mentioned this until the #20 post, did anyone actually watch that game last night? The Brewers probably swung at 20 balls around the letters or higher, in fact, they swung at just about every pitch they saw, it was pathetic.
It was, they kept trying to elevate the ****ing ball. If they had laid off those pitches, Hill walks in about four runs and the Brewers run away with the game.

kittle42
08-29-2007, 01:01 PM
100% correct and I'm surprised no one mentioned this until the #20 post, did anyone actually watch that game last night? The Brewers probably swung at 20 balls around the letters or higher, in fact, they swung at just about every pitch they saw, it was pathetic.

Maybe that's the book on the Brewers of late, in which case Hill was doing his job. I know it's weird to think teams might have some advance scouting, since our doesn't seem to. :cool:

soxfan13
08-29-2007, 01:04 PM
Danks v. NL:

14.1 IP; 9 ER; 0-1; 10 BB; 16 K; 5.65 ERA

Yup, he really mowed 'em down.

Yes, the NL is an inferior league to the AL generally the past few years. But the "Everything NL sucks" crowd around here is getting pretty ridiculous.

Agree 100 percent:gulp:

jabrch
08-29-2007, 01:53 PM
When Hill was 22, he had an 8.36 ERA in Low A ball.

He very well may be better than Danks, but today is a bad day to make that call.

Look at the Cubs other young lefty - Sean Marshall. At age 22, Marshall had a 5.90 ERA in 30 IP in AA.

Danks may or may not every be a middle or even front of the rotation guy. But it is unfair to evaluate him by comparing stat lines to guys that much older than he.

soxinem1
08-29-2007, 02:02 PM
Hill has been solid all year, Danks has been inconsistent.

Hill was the same way, however, when he first came up.

Both are very similar, but I think Hill has a better FB. Danks, while very composed, does not have that booming fastball that he was supposed to have when he was drafted.

This question can probably be better answered in about 365 days.

skottyj242
08-29-2007, 04:34 PM
Rick Hill will lead the league in strikeouts eithier next year or soon and be a good strikeout pitcher for a long time. I hope Danks gets as good as him one day.

oeo
08-29-2007, 04:48 PM
Both are very similar, but I think Hill has a better FB. Danks, while very composed, does not have that booming fastball that he was supposed to have when he was drafted.

Aren't their fastballs actually very similar? Not to mention Danks has an above average curve (as does Hill), and change...he just needs to learn to keep the ball down, and he'll be alright. I don't know much about Rich HIll's repertoire, though, to compare the two. But Danks is also 5 years younger in his rookie season, while Rich HIll is 27 and has had half seasons the past two years.

DumpJerry
08-29-2007, 05:44 PM
Too early to say, but when it's all said and done at the end of their careers, I think it will be Danks. He has Buehrle mentoring him. Hill has Zambozo showing him the ropes.

Think about it. Mark talks with Danks about how to pick off runners, hit his spots on pitches and keep a cool head when bad things happen. Zambozo shows Hill how to point to the sky, bounce like a bobblehead on strikeouts and glare at the Ump.

JB98
08-29-2007, 06:02 PM
Hill is much farther along in his development. Not really fair to compare the two at this point. Danks wasn't even expected to be in the majors this season at the start of the year.

oeo
08-29-2007, 06:05 PM
Think about it. Mark talks with Danks about how to pick off runners, hit his spots on pitches and keep a cool head when bad things happen. Zambozo shows Hill how to point to the sky, bounce like a bobblehead on strikeouts and glare at the Ump.

I would pay good money to see Rich HIll, of all people, act like the Bozo. It would be ridiculously funny. It would almost be like Jon Garland doing the same. :lol:

UserNameBlank
08-29-2007, 06:29 PM
Too early to say, but when it's all said and done at the end of their careers, I think it will be Danks. He has Buehrle mentoring him. Hill has Zambozo showing him the ropes.

Think about it. Mark talks with Danks about how to pick off runners, hit his spots on pitches and keep a cool head when bad things happen. Zambozo shows Hill how to point to the sky, bounce like a bobblehead on strikeouts and glare at the Ump.
I think you probably meant this as at least kind of a joke, but you might be correct. Notice that it didn't take long for Hill to get into an agrument with Barrett after Zambrano beat his ass.

As for the topic, I have to take Danks. Hill = Cub fans' overrated McCarthy. He has a big curve and nothing for a fastball and will get hit hard because of it. Danks needs to better his control and become more confident with his changeup. He needs to work lower in the zone, too. The high fastballs often work for him but he needs to stop doing it so much. As long as he goes up and out of the zone every once in a while and shows the pitch that is all he needs to do. Then drop the curve.

EndemicSox
08-29-2007, 06:31 PM
Put a gun to my head and I take Hill for the next five years. His curveball is beyond sick, good enough to overcome his fastball, imo. Check back five years from now.

champagne030
08-29-2007, 06:36 PM
Too early to say, but when it's all said and done at the end of their careers, I think it will be Danks.

I agree with this. I would rather have Hill for '08 and probably '09, but 2-4 years down the line I think Danks will be the better pitcher.

jabrch
08-30-2007, 08:54 AM
Rick Hill will lead the league in strikeouts eithier next year or soon

You predicting Peavy, Webb and Hammels all being traded to the AL?

balke
08-30-2007, 11:41 AM
So when do we start the Hill v. Buehrle thread since they

1) Both pitch in Chicago
2) Both are left handed pitchers early in their MLB career
3) Both have decent fastballs and above average curveballs
4) Both have good mound presence
5) Both have pretty high ceilings

They are separated in age by a year.

DumpJerry
08-30-2007, 02:14 PM
So when do we start the Hill v. Buehrle thread since they

1) Both pitch in Chicago
2) Both are left handed pitchers early in their MLB career
3) Both have decent fastballs and above average curveballs
4) Both have good mound presence
5) Both have pretty high ceilings

They are separated in age by a year.
Probably never. It would be unfair to Hill.

soxinem1
08-30-2007, 04:09 PM
Aren't their fastballs actually very similar? Not to mention Danks has an above average curve (as does Hill), and change...he just needs to learn to keep the ball down, and he'll be alright. I don't know much about Rich HIll's repertoire, though, to compare the two. But Danks is also 5 years younger in his rookie season, while Rich HIll is 27 and has had half seasons the past two years.

Sure, they are now. But Danks was made out to be the second coming of Randy Johnson when he was drafted. Either he lost a lot of speed or was over-hyped. I don't think he touches much over 90+ on a good day.

I agree with your other statements about Hill, but right now, I'd say Hill has the upper hand, as he learned from being pounded early in his career. Which is why I noted we need to see this question in about a year. Then we'll see if Danks learned from this season at all.