Rich Hill Got Good Again

Over the winter, the Dodgers re-signed Rich Hill. They did so because they knew that, when he was able to pitch, Hill looked like one of the best starting pitchers in the game. And then 2017 went and got underway. Through the earlier part of 2017, Hill looked like one of the more frustrating starting pitchers in the game. The stuff, for the most part, remained there, but Hill didn’t have his same control, and his remarkable curveball was no longer working. I wrote about Hill in the middle of June, at which point his curveball had the lowest run value among all curveballs, out of everyone. It made me wonder where, exactly, Rich Hill was. Could someone who reappeared so suddenly disappear with similar speed?

Since I wrote about Hill and his struggles, he’s gone back to looking like one of the best starting pitchers in the game. In three starts, he’s allowed four runs over 19 innings, with six walks and 26 strikeouts. The easy explanation is that Hill has simply regressed to the mean. That is, his newer mean, the one he began establishing a couple years ago. That explanation would ignore the changes that Hill has folded in. Regression to the mean isn’t an automatic process. Rich Hill has simultaneously simplified and grown more complex.

It seemed to me that Hill’s biggest issue was mechanical. That’s not actually tremendous insight — most struggles tend to be mechanical. Some of those struggles are fixed, and some of them aren’t. Hill developed a location problem, and then, between starts in June, it was as if the pieces fell into place. The Dodgers provided Hill with some information showing that he had been pitching better out of the stretch. Hill, in turn, modified and simplified his delivery. He didn’t go all stretch, all the time, but he eliminated some action. Here’s Hill early on:

And here’s Hill in a recent game against the Angels:

It’s easy enough to see the obvious change. The intended effects were and are subtle. Hill wanted to get his timing down, to get every part of his body in sync, and he now feels like he’s better able to do that. I feel like I’ve focused a lot of late on pitchers and their front foots, but you can see something with Hill; below, early 2017 Hill on the left, and more recent 2017 Hill on the right.

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.

These shots are from nearly identical moments in the motion. Allow me to issue the usual caveats that individual screenshots aren’t always representative of regular mechanics, but Hill on the left here already has his front foot down. He’s getting ready to throw across his body, and because his foot is down, his arm is effectively going to be late. This would go toward explaining why Hill had so much trouble missing up and to the arm-side. Over on the right, Hill’s foot isn’t down yet. It’s nearly there, and Hill’s still going to throw across his body, but he’s going to throw less across his body, and his arm and legs are in better sync. Right-side Hill has the timing down, and so better location would follow.

That’s not the only recent simplification. I’ve borrowed some release-point plots from Baseball Savant. For now, ignore the pitch classifications, and just look at where the dots are scattered.

One of the Rich Hill tricks was that he’d throw from two different arm slots. There was the usual three-quarters, but then sometimes Hill would drop down to throw either his fastball or his curve. You know this twist — it’s the one that inspired Clayton Kershaw to mess around with the same thing. Hill, in the earlier part of the season, was dropping down with some regularity. Over the last three starts, Hill has barely done it. It hasn’t been completely eliminated, but Hill has focused his concentration on one delivery, for the most part. It’s tough enough to get one throwing motion down, nevermind two. The low slot could return, but it has been mostly absent.

Hill has modified his delivery and he’s mostly eliminated a second arm slot. Those are simplifications. But there’s also a new twist. In these plots, you see pitch spin on the x-axis, and pitch velocity on the y-axis. Look again at how the dots are arranged.

I suppose there are a couple things here. Recently, Hill has mostly stuck with one variation of his curve. That could be connected to eliminating the lower arm slot. But, also, look at the new clump that’s formed in the mid-80s, underneath Hill’s fastballs. It’s been written about elsewhere, but Rich Hill has added a cutter. It’s not a pitch he used to throw. The two-pitch pitcher has increased the size of his repertoire by 50%, sort of, and Hill had some of his own inspiration:

Because of Hill, Kershaw occasionally started to drop down. And at least in part because of Kershaw, Hill has unveiled a cutter with confidence. He used it a great deal three starts ago; in the last two starts, it’s easily been Hill’s third pitch. It’s likely to remain Hill’s third pitch, but it’s already been good for six strikeouts. Hill feels like he can throw the cutter for a strike, and it gives him something besides fastball and curveball tweaks. Hill has a history of playing with the curveball finger pressure, but the cutter is a whole new toy. Let’s watch it embarrass Cameron Maybin:

That’s a cutter for one strike. Okay. Hill subsequently doubled up:

Maybin was primed for the mid-80s, so he was no match for Hill’s 91 to end the at-bat:

Any three-pitch strikeout is likely to make a pitcher look like the best version of himself. Hill hasn’t struck everybody out on three pitches, and he remains a pitcher who sometimes puts people on base. Hell, just in those clips, you can see that Hill and his team are losing 3-0. But Hill has clearly gotten better, and there’s a link between that improvement and the introduction of the cutter. Batters, in time, could adjust to Hill’s new repertoire, but that’s how baseball works, and no pitcher is ever worse for developing a new and trusty tool.

So, Rich Hill: great, to irritating, and back to great again. Even at 37, he continues to evolve, and by just pointing to basic regression, not enough credit is given to Hill’s ability to tweak on the fly. Regression to the mean doesn’t happen because players just let it happen; it happens, mostly, because players work to return to their true-talent levels, which requires certain focus and effort. Rich Hill has gotten back to being terrific, but along the way, within a matter of days, he changed his delivery and altered his repertoire. There’s likely to be another clunker at some point, but suffice to say that Hill is earning your patience.





Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.

17 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
kbn
9 years ago

An interesting observation here is that Hill has basically converted his repertoire into a clone of Drew Pomeranz (by eliminating the second arm slot and adding a high-80s cutter), who has himself often been compared to Hill. Just by eyeballing it, Hill’s cutter appears to have slightly less action than Pomeranz’s (might just be the off-center camera angle), but his fastball has more rise and his curve is tighter, so they’re not ENTIRELY comparable. But still, interesting the way they have (at least for now) evolved to the same spot.

Meanwhile, Pomeranz has been experimenting with adding a classic four-seam changeup. Hill’s arm slot should be compatible with that concept (unlike Kershaw’s, which is a little too over the top for it), so I wonder if he’s considered a similar line of evolution.

ndbrian
9 years ago

He’s also faced the Padres, Angels, and Mets in the last three games . . . not exactly Murderer’s Row (with the Mets being the only decent offensive team of the lot). Let’s see how he does against a few other decent ones before we resurrect him (as a Rich Hill owner on my primary fantasy team, I’m really hoping he is “good again.”)

mikejuntMember
9 years ago
Reply to  ndbrian

Hills problem wasn’t that connected to the hitter. It was throwing 50 balls a game and walking tons of guys.

He’s in the strike zone again. It’s not that hill was throwing hangers that got knocked all over the park, it was just an inability to get his curve in the zone so no one had to swing at it.

Deacon DrakeMember since 2017
9 years ago

The timing is so difficult to catch because the foot can be obscured by number of things. It looks that everything is in much better order and is committing to the target (instead of flying open toward first base), and following through to his right knee (ignoring the defensive reflex). Many of the caps taken from his slump showed his left hand only reaching his hip before clutching back.

BuckoSama
9 years ago
Reply to  Deacon Drake

Out of sincere, but curious ignorance, can someone please define “flying open” for me? I see it a lot in pitching and swinging mechanics analysis, but I’m not really sure what it means. Sorry to be a newb 🙂

Crushinator
9 years ago
Reply to  BuckoSama

The first gif is a pretty good example. Looking at his lead shoulder movement you can see it is pretty horizontal (in the image from left to right). In pitching mechanics there should be a sort of pulling motion with the front arm (which means more vertical and downward movement with the shoulder) into the rib cage which helps your body drive towards home plate rather than third base. thus “flying open.” For a good illustration of NOT flying open look at Kenley Jansen’s lead shoulder and how it pulls down towards the plate: http://giant.gfycat.com/LikableCavernousHairstreakbutterfly.gif

Of course mechanics are varied from person to person and not everyone absolutely pulls the shoulder downward or needs to as much as Jansen, but it helps keep the direction of the body aligned going forward towards the plate rather than taking that energy and moving sideways.

In hitting the mechanics are relatively similar. if you “fly open” then either you are fooled hard on an off speed or you are cheating on the fastball and opening up too soon in an attempt to catch up with it. But again it is about the lead shoulder.

Fan gaff
9 years ago

Yea he is so great, he lowered his WHIP to 1.35!

Fhone Ciggins
9 years ago

I feel like this is a bit premature, it’s only a few starts. There might be some confirmation bias here, working on the assumption that this is who Rich Hill “should be.”

HOFConnect
9 years ago

I like the fact that he has this cuter now. Seems he is way too low in rankings of fantasy pitcher value on many “experts” list and I will use him tonight in my leineups with good hopes of him duplicating the quality win Wood brought yesterday against the D-Backs

tung_twista
9 years ago

“Regression to the mean doesn’t happen because players just let it happen; it happens, mostly, because players work to return to their true-talent levels, which requires certain focus and effort.”

This!

hurricanexyzMember since 2016
9 years ago
Reply to  tung_twista

Yes so very much this. I play golf, and I know damn well that I’m not the same player on a good day that I am on a bad day. Something underlying is different, and given that underlying difference it’s not at all random how I’m going to play.

Of course, it is quite random indeed when I happen to be my best self and when I’m not. Not that I don’t affect the process through conscious effort, but the overall pattern of when I’m successful and when I’m not has no real rhyme or reason to it. So I’ve always suspected that the observed randomness of athletic performance reflects random short-term fluctuations in how good players really are, e.g. whether they’re in a slump or “locked in” or whatever, rather than just random outcomes from an unchanging underlying process.

Thecul
9 years ago
Reply to  tung_twista

I feel like this is really bad. This is NOT what regression to the mean is at all. This is changing the inputs. It’s not getting a more average outcome from the same inputs which is what regression to mean is supposed to be.

hurricanexyzMember since 2016
9 years ago
Reply to  Thecul

That is true, about the definition of the phrase; on the other hand it’s worth considering how many things that get called regression or whatever actually involve changing the inputs like this. And my point was to some extent that I think that in actual human sporting endeavors, the random fluctuation, including the phenomenon of regression, largely happens at the level of these underlying inputs.

John Autin
9 years ago

FWIW, I’m not sure that “Rich Hill’s new mean” exists.

The one you allude to was 139 innings in 24 starts spread over 2 seasons, with the bigger one split by a 6-week DL stint. He was great in that stretch, but the first 8 games of crappy Rich Hill this year is one-third as big as the reference point. Or, you could say this year’s so-so body of Rich Hill work is about half as big as the prior reference point.

Rick Porcello and Kyle Hendricks were great last year, and with much more volume than Hill — but it wasn’t their new mean.

And it’s worth noting that the “old” Rich Hill’s biggest problem, by far, was excessive walks — career 4.3 BB/9 before his Boston renaissance. That same problem returned this year, and 3 better starts doesn’t seem quite enough to pronounce him restored to dominance.

Of course, now Hill will probably throw 6 perfect innings against Arizona tonight. But I’ve had my say.

CasonJolette
9 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

7 innings, 1 ER and 9 K weren’t too bad… against a good hitting team like Arizona nonetheless

John Autin
9 years ago
Reply to  CasonJolette

Most importantly … no walks. 🙂

Ryan Morton
9 years ago

While I love reading about pitchers, I never pitched, nor can I jump to any conclusions about mechanics.
Can anyone comment on the possibility of the cutter mitigating the repeated blister issue caused by the constancy of the curve?