Cubs Sign Marquis to 3/21

[nilodnayr]

I'm not sure I understand that statement. I'd say ERA is important when it comes to a players ERA :lol:

 

Well it'll make sense when it comes to you.

 

2003: 113 ERA+

2004: 103 ERA+

2005: 73 ERA+

 

Good luck finding a youngster in our system that will give us a healthy season with an ERA+ over 90.

 

You know, usually when someone discredits a statistic for some reason you're supposed to change the argument. All you did was take the same statistic and show it to me in a different form. It's like you saying that Carlos Lee hits 50 homers per 800 ABs. And then I say that there are other ways to grade a hitter's performance than home runs, then refute my argument with, Carlos Lee hits homers at a rate 25% better than league average.

 

It's the exact same argument and my previous point remains. ERA has little to do with ERA.

 

It's one think to say that we could replace Marquis's production at a fraction of the cost and another to point out some guys in our system that are ML ready and actually capable of doing it.

 

I wouldn't say a guy with an ERA that's probably going to be five has much if any "production." And yes, Guzman and Marshall can certainly produce the same.

 

Did you miss the entire 2006 season? The one in which Cedeno could easily outproduce Neifi's career numbers and any of the minor leaguers could certainly outproduce the 2005 version of Glendon Rusch?

 

There is no guarantee that Marshall or Guzman could even produce at a semi-acceptable level. The 2006 Marquis was definitely not a great pitcher, however, the Cubs must have seen something in him that makes them truly believe that he can get back on track and outproduce any of the younger pitchers.

 

You can discount ERA all you like, but many of us would be ecstatic if the Cubs #4 pitcher won 15 games with a 3.87 ERA.

 

You do realize though that Glendon Rusch and Neifi Perez themselves could not reproduce, let alone outproduce Rusch's and Perez's 05 seasons, right?

[Mephistopheles]

Wait. Did you just discredit ERA as a worthwhile stat and then use it to make your point? :shock:

 

See: Two posts above you.

 

Did you miss the entire 2006 season? The one in which Cedeno could easily outproduce Neifi's career numbers and any of the minor leaguers could certainly outproduce the 2005 version of Glendon Rusch?

 

1.) I wasn't here before this season so you have no idea what I would have said about those things.

2.) Cedeno outpeformed Neifi Perez in 2006 which is all that matters.

3.) Rusch (healthy) is a decent option for the price we had him at. He totally busted. Our minor leaguers outperformed him last season, which is all that matters.

 

All of the guys you said the rookies outperformed...so really your points are invalid.

 

There is no guarantee that Marshall or Guzman could even produce at a semi-acceptable level. The 2006 Marquis was definitely not a great pitcher, however, the Cubs must have seen something in him that makes them truly believe that he can get back on track and outproduce any of the younger pitchers.

 

I am a very philosophical person. I quote people all the time, and now you allow me a chance to bring up one of my favorite message board banter quotes. Friedrich Nietzsche once defined faith as "not wanting to know what is true." The Cubs may believe they found a flaw in Marquis, but I am not going to have blind hope and I am going to look at it objectively. The facts are that he can't strike guys out, and he walks too many and those things are relatively constant throughout a career. He's not changing them anytime soon. As it has been said, Sean Marshall had an ERA a half of a run below Marquis'. Of course Guzman may not outpitch Marquis ERA wise next season but why not look at the difference between Guzman and Marquis. If you expect an ERA around 4.80-5.00 from Marquis as I do, and then say the lowest Guzman would put up is say, um 5.10 (the more he pitches the more he adapts the better he becomes). ERA for a SP is almost always defined on two things ER allowed and innings pitched by the pitcher. Guzman's higher ERA for five innings on average isn't great, but who is pitching the sixth inning? A decent reliever whose ERA is probably at four at the worst in the games that are close. You make those adjustments and the overall ERA in the same amount of IP is going to be about the same. I did't even mention Guzman's relatively higher probability of getting high ERA's - or the fact that Marquis costs twenty-one million dollars.

 

You can discount ERA all you like, but many of us would be ecstatic if the Cubs #4 pitcher won 15 games with a 3.87 ERA.

 

So would I, but it's still not going to happen. Let's not pretend he's good.

 

If someone wants to say ERA isn't a great stat then say that. Saying ERA doesn't mean jack when it comes to ERA is just self-contradicting unless i'm missing something.

 

Again, see Tim's post. ERA matters A LOT. But ERA itself has little to do with ERA.

[Fred Hornkohl]

 

2.) Cedeno outpeformed Neifi Perez in 2006 which is all that matters.

 

 

04/03 - 10/01  AB   R   H  2B  3B  HR  TB RBI  BB  SO     BA    OBP    SLG    OPS
Cedeno        534  51 131  18   7   6 181  41  17 109  0.245  0.271  0.339  0.610
Perez         236  27  60  13   1   2  81  24   5  21  0.254  0.266  0.343  0.610

 

I think they were equally bad, no?

[Mephistopheles]

Except that OPS undervalues OBP.

[XZero771679666304]

Except that OPS undervalues OBP.

 

Cedeno's OBP was .005 higher than Neifi's. That is pretty darned insignificant. Ronny was just as bad as Neifi.

[Mizzou]

Except that OPS undervalues OBP.

 

Cedeno's OBP was .005 higher than Neifi's. That is pretty darned insignificant. Ronny was just as bad as Neifi.

Seriously. It cracks me up when people try to say that Cedeno was better than Neifi last year. I'd take .254/.266/.343/.610 over .245/.271/.339/.610 every day of the week.

 

Some people seem to forget that a hit is better than a walk.

[BigbadB]

Except that OPS undervalues OBP.

 

Cedeno's OBP was .005 higher than Neifi's. That is pretty darned insignificant. Ronny was just as bad as Neifi.

Seriously. It cracks me up when people try to say that Cedeno was better than Neifi last year. I'd take .254/.266/.343/.610 over .245/.271/.339/.610 every day of the week.

 

Some people seem to forget that a hit is better than a walk.

 

 

I'll take option C. Neither.

[CuseCubFan69]

Except that OPS undervalues OBP.

 

Cedeno's OBP was .005 higher than Neifi's. That is pretty darned insignificant. Ronny was just as bad as Neifi.

Seriously. It cracks me up when people try to say that Cedeno was better than Neifi last year. I'd take .254/.266/.343/.610 over .245/.271/.339/.610 every day of the week.

 

Some people seem to forget that a hit is better than a walk.

 

What do you consider a better AB.....a 10 pitch walk with no one on base or a first pitch single with no one on base?

[Soul]

Except that OPS undervalues OBP.

 

Cedeno's OBP was .005 higher than Neifi's. That is pretty darned insignificant. Ronny was just as bad as Neifi.

Seriously. It cracks me up when people try to say that Cedeno was better than Neifi last year. I'd take .254/.266/.343/.610 over .245/.271/.339/.610 every day of the week.

 

Some people seem to forget that a hit is better than a walk.

 

What do you consider a better AB.....a 10 pitch walk with no one on base or a first pitch single with no one on base?

 

I'll take the hitter who can do either on a much more consistent basis than Ronny or Neifi :wink:

[Garwilly]

Except that OPS undervalues OBP.

 

Cedeno's OBP was .005 higher than Neifi's. That is pretty darned insignificant. Ronny was just as bad as Neifi.

Seriously. It cracks me up when people try to say that Cedeno was better than Neifi last year. I'd take .254/.266/.343/.610 over .245/.271/.339/.610 every day of the week.

 

Some people seem to forget that a hit is better than a walk.

 

What do you consider a better AB.....a 10 pitch walk with no one on base or a first pitch single with no one on base?

 

Not that I disagree with you....but which is better a 2 out walk with runners on 2nd and 3rd or a two out single with runners on 2nd and 3rd.

[Mizzou]

Except that OPS undervalues OBP.

 

Cedeno's OBP was .005 higher than Neifi's. That is pretty darned insignificant. Ronny was just as bad as Neifi.

Seriously. It cracks me up when people try to say that Cedeno was better than Neifi last year. I'd take .254/.266/.343/.610 over .245/.271/.339/.610 every day of the week.

 

Some people seem to forget that a hit is better than a walk.

 

What do you consider a better AB.....a 10 pitch walk with no one on base or a first pitch single with no one on base?

Obviously I'll take the 10 pitch walk with no one on base in that particular situation. My point was that I'd prefer to have a team full of guys that can hit their way on versus a team full of guys that can walk their way on. The ability to hit is more valuable than the ability to take a walk.

[nilodnayr]

Except that OPS undervalues OBP.

 

Cedeno's OBP was .005 higher than Neifi's. That is pretty darned insignificant. Ronny was just as bad as Neifi.

Seriously. It cracks me up when people try to say that Cedeno was better than Neifi last year. I'd take .254/.266/.343/.610 over .245/.271/.339/.610 every day of the week.

 

Some people seem to forget that a hit is better than a walk.

 

What do you consider a better AB.....a 10 pitch walk with no one on base or a first pitch single with no one on base?

Obviously I'll take the 10 pitch walk with no one on base in that particular situation. My point was that I'd prefer to have a team full of guys that can hit their way on versus a team full of guys that can walk their way on. The ability to hit is more valuable than the ability to take a walk.

 

Batters do not have the ability to hit...they have the ability to make contact. Some hitters make more quality contact than others which usually results in more hits, but you are forgettting that once the ball leaves the bat, the hitter loses control of the outcome except for a home run (and using speed to stretch doubles into triples, etc.).

 

The ability to take a walk is more valuable than the ability to simply put the ball in play.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

 

2.) Cedeno outpeformed Neifi Perez in 2006 which is all that matters.

 

 

04/03 - 10/01  AB   R   H  2B  3B  HR  TB RBI  BB  SO     BA    OBP    SLG    OPS
Cedeno        534  51 131  18   7   6 181  41  17 109  0.245  0.271  0.339  0.610
Perez         236  27  60  13   1   2  81  24   5  21  0.254  0.266  0.343  0.610

 

I think they were equally bad, no?

 

Not that it makes much of a difference, but based on that, I think Neifi's OPS is .609.

[Bruno7481]

Except that OPS undervalues OBP.

 

Cedeno's OBP was .005 higher than Neifi's. That is pretty darned insignificant. Ronny was just as bad as Neifi.

Seriously. It cracks me up when people try to say that Cedeno was better than Neifi last year. I'd take .254/.266/.343/.610 over .245/.271/.339/.610 every day of the week.

 

Some people seem to forget that a hit is better than a walk.

 

What do you consider a better AB.....a 10 pitch walk with no one on base or a first pitch single with no one on base?

Obviously I'll take the 10 pitch walk with no one on base in that particular situation. My point was that I'd prefer to have a team full of guys that can hit their way on versus a team full of guys that can walk their way on. The ability to hit is more valuable than the ability to take a walk.

 

Batters do not have the ability to hit...they have the ability to make contact. Some hitters make more quality contact than others which usually results in more hits, but you are forgettting that once the ball leaves the bat, the hitter loses control of the outcome except for a home run (and using speed to stretch doubles into triples, etc.).

 

The ability to take a walk is more valuable than the ability to simply put the ball in play.

 

I beleive 100% in finding the right pitch to hit, whenever that pitch presents itself in the course of an at-bat. A hitter has to know what pitch he can hit, and which he can't, even if they are strikes. I have absolutely no problem with a hitter going after the first pitch if it is in that zone. Being selective is part of that, but I don't want a hitter to feel like they can't be aggressive either.

 

Hitters, through repetition, practive, and mechanics most certainly do have the ability to hit, and not just make contact. Being selective and recognizing your strengths and limitations are most important, whether that results in a base hit or a walk.

 

The ability to to take a walk is NOT more important than a player's ability to hit.

[Mizzou]

Except that OPS undervalues OBP.

 

Cedeno's OBP was .005 higher than Neifi's. That is pretty darned insignificant. Ronny was just as bad as Neifi.

Seriously. It cracks me up when people try to say that Cedeno was better than Neifi last year. I'd take .254/.266/.343/.610 over .245/.271/.339/.610 every day of the week.

 

Some people seem to forget that a hit is better than a walk.

 

What do you consider a better AB.....a 10 pitch walk with no one on base or a first pitch single with no one on base?

Obviously I'll take the 10 pitch walk with no one on base in that particular situation. My point was that I'd prefer to have a team full of guys that can hit their way on versus a team full of guys that can walk their way on. The ability to hit is more valuable than the ability to take a walk.

 

Batters do not have the ability to hit...they have the ability to make contact. Some hitters make more quality contact than others which usually results in more hits, but you are forgettting that once the ball leaves the bat, the hitter loses control of the outcome except for a home run (and using speed to stretch doubles into triples, etc.).

 

The ability to take a walk is more valuable than the ability to simply put the ball in play.

So you'd rather have a team of guys that walk and never get hits, versus a team that hits but never walks? I'd take the team that hits and never walks, and I gaurantee you that my team would beat your team, all other things equal. Hitting is so much better than walking.

[FergieJ31]

Except that OPS undervalues OBP.

 

Cedeno's OBP was .005 higher than Neifi's. That is pretty darned insignificant. Ronny was just as bad as Neifi.

Seriously. It cracks me up when people try to say that Cedeno was better than Neifi last year. I'd take .254/.266/.343/.610 over .245/.271/.339/.610 every day of the week.

 

Some people seem to forget that a hit is better than a walk.

 

What do you consider a better AB.....a 10 pitch walk with no one on base or a first pitch single with no one on base?

Obviously I'll take the 10 pitch walk with no one on base in that particular situation. My point was that I'd prefer to have a team full of guys that can hit their way on versus a team full of guys that can walk their way on. The ability to hit is more valuable than the ability to take a walk.

 

Batters do not have the ability to hit...they have the ability to make contact. Some hitters make more quality contact than others which usually results in more hits, but you are forgettting that once the ball leaves the bat, the hitter loses control of the outcome except for a home run (and using speed to stretch doubles into triples, etc.).

 

The ability to take a walk is more valuable than the ability to simply put the ball in play.

So you'd rather have a team of guys that walk and never get hits, versus a team that hits but never walks? I'd take the team that hits and never walks, and I gaurantee you that my team would beat your team, all other things equal. Hitting is so much better than walking.

 

I hear what you're saying and your logic is sound (a hit must be better than a walk), but measuring the "ability to hit" is much dicier than measuring the ability to walk.

 

The ability to take a walk (measured by IsoD) is much more stable and predictable than ability to hit (measured by BA) from one year to the next.

[Mephistopheles]

about the whole a hit is better than a walk nonsense, some people should do some math. OPS = OBP + SLG. An additional hit adds some to OBP and SLG, an additional walk adds some to OBP, and since a hit = walk in OBP, then any function x * OBP + y * SLG where x and y > 0 will have hit > walk overall.

[nilodnayr]

Except that OPS undervalues OBP.

 

Cedeno's OBP was .005 higher than Neifi's. That is pretty darned insignificant. Ronny was just as bad as Neifi.

Seriously. It cracks me up when people try to say that Cedeno was better than Neifi last year. I'd take .254/.266/.343/.610 over .245/.271/.339/.610 every day of the week.

 

Some people seem to forget that a hit is better than a walk.

 

What do you consider a better AB.....a 10 pitch walk with no one on base or a first pitch single with no one on base?

Obviously I'll take the 10 pitch walk with no one on base in that particular situation. My point was that I'd prefer to have a team full of guys that can hit their way on versus a team full of guys that can walk their way on. The ability to hit is more valuable than the ability to take a walk.

 

Batters do not have the ability to hit...they have the ability to make contact. Some hitters make more quality contact than others which usually results in more hits, but you are forgettting that once the ball leaves the bat, the hitter loses control of the outcome except for a home run (and using speed to stretch doubles into triples, etc.).

 

The ability to take a walk is more valuable than the ability to simply put the ball in play.

So you'd rather have a team of guys that walk and never get hits, versus a team that hits but never walks? I'd take the team that hits and never walks, and I gaurantee you that my team would beat your team, all other things equal. Hitting is so much better than walking.

 

Again, you are using "get hits" and "make contact" interchangably and thats just not right. On average, only 1/3rd of contact made results in a hit. No player just makes contact, just like no player just walks. Its ignorant to say a team of one is better than a team of the other because batters do not have 100% control over either outcome. The player only has control over one of the actions that lead to the outcome (taking the pitch/swinging at the pitch). He has neglible if any control over where the pitcher throws it. Just like after contact is made the player has negligible control as to whether or not it becomes a hit. If you go up to the plate thinking, I am going to swing the bat to try to get a hit, then you swing the bat and either hit the ball or miss the ball. You miss the ball 3 times, you are out. You hit the ball, then it depends on where you hit it as to if you get an out. If you go up to the plate thinking, I am going to keep the bat on my shoulder to try to draw a walk, then the pitcher either throws 4 balls before 3 strikes or not. To say one approach is better than the other is ridiculous because the outcomes are not 100% in a hitters control. Like Bruno said, finding the right pitch to hit is the key (this means identifying good pitches AND bad pitches). That is why Ted Williams, Jason Giambi, and Barry Bonds are some of the greatest hitters. That is why the ocular enhancer machine is popular. The key to hitting is appropriately identifying pitches.

[Mephistopheles]

walking is better than making contact.

[nilodnayr]

so can we all agree, hit>walk>making contact?

[Guest]

walking is better than making contact.

Though Bonds in 2001 came very close to changing that balance for himself.

 

And Mizzou: I'll take a team that can draw a walk every time to one that can make solid contact every time - every time.

[Soriano12]

so can we all agree, hit>walk>making contact?

 

I'm reminded of that SNL Skit where Will Ferrell played Haray Caray host of "Space the Infinite Frontier"

 

.

 

Harry Caray: It’s not rocket science. Just say yes and we’ll move on.

[JC]

walking is better than making contact.

Though Bonds in 2001 came very close to changing that balance for himself.

 

And Mizzou: I'll take a team that can draw a walk every time to one that can make solid contact every time - every time.

 

Every single time.

[craig]

This is a goofy discussion. A walk is never an out, and most batted balls are, so of course walks are advantageous. And as kc notes, hits are already double-counted in OPS (counting on both slugging and OBP side), whereas walks count just once (OBP side only).

 

But I think people should be careful in suggesting that a hitter has no control over a ball once hit. Batters have a large range in production via their batted balls. So within the world of contact, there is a world of difference between one hitter and the next.

*There is a wide range in how many of those batted balls go over the wall for HR's. And while a hitter can't control all his contact to go over the wall, certainly the ability to hit the ball over the wall with higher frequency is a function of the hitter, not of randomness. I suspect most of us will also agree that a HR is better than a walk!

*For balls in play, you can crush one and still be out, and dink another and end up with a hit. So there is a degree of randomness, leading to the scatter in BABIP from year to year. But, there are substantial hitter-based patterns in BABIP. It's a common misconception to suggest that since basically all pitchers have a pretty tight range of BABIP-allowed, that when hitters put the ball in play, that they must all have about the same BABIP. That isn't actually correct. There is variation of course, but there are hitters who consistently trend 30-60 points higher, sometimes more, than what other hitters do. So, there is a large element of control that hitters have over what happens with their balls in play.

*The same goes for slugging. There are players who will consistently slug much higher on their balls in play than other hitters. Again, there is a meaningful control by the hitter.

*Data shows that there is a substantial difference in BABIP on balls-in-play with no strikes versus with 2-strikes. It makes sense that hitters are trying to defend against the K with 2 strikes, and end up swinging at a lot of bad balls that they hit with less authority.

 

One other aspect on the walk/hit thing: there is a larger range on players batting-average-on-batted-balls (between good hitters and bad hitters) than there is in IsoD between patient, disciplined hitters and hackers. Vintage Bonds is a freak in both cases, of course; he had some fabulous averages on batted balls, while also having some extraordinary IsoD.

 

I'm not saying that walks, pitch selection, and plate discipline aren't extremely desirable and valuable. But the OBP difference between the best and worst non-Bonds walkers in the league is not as large as the OBP difference between the best and worst non-Bonds hitters (in terms of overall OBP or in terms of OBP-on-batted balls).

 

I know Hendry or Dusty made some dopey comment about this during the season. I can't remember the details, but the gist was the view that when you look at the top OBP guys, they are dominated by guys with strong batting averages. And that when you look at any offensive player, even the most walk-effective, walks makes only a modest fractional contribution to their OBP. With a high-level walker plate-discipline guy, even those normally get 3-4 hits per every walk.

 

Duh, what a genius conclusion: walking is important, but hitting is too!

[Soul]

walking is better than making contact.

Though Bonds in 2001 came very close to changing that balance for himself.

 

And Mizzou: I'll take a team that can draw a walk every time to one that can make solid contact every time - every time.

 

Every single time.

 

As long as we're stating the obvious...

 

Give me the team that ends up with the World Series trophy. 8-)