The Importance of an Innings Eater

[CubsWin]

I keep hearing the Cubs brass mention how Lilly and Marquis are reliable innings eaters, that they are each likely to pitch over 175 innings and be around 200.

 

I understand that the Cubs didn't have that in their rotation last season and that not having guys that "can give you innings" will cause undo stress on a team's bullpen, but outside of that, can anyone think of any other benefit for being able to pitch close to 200 innings in a season?

[Sarcastic]

I keep hearing the Cubs brass mention how Lilly and Marquis are reliable innings eaters, that they are each likely to pitch over 175 innings and be around 200.

 

I understand that the Cubs didn't have that in their rotation last season and that not having guys that "can give you innings" will cause undo stress on a team's bullpen, but outside of that, can anyone think of any other benefit for being able to pitch close to 200 innings in a season?

 

I guess the idea is that innings eaters can safely be penciled in to take many innings that would otherwise go to replacement level crap from AAA, which is what happened last year because the Cubs didn't have a reliable pitching staff. Of course with Marquis, there's no guarantee he'll be substantially better than AAA crap.

[Mephistopheles]

Overtaxing a bullpen is one of baseball's false beliefs, in my opinion. An impact? Yes. But the reduced stress on the pen isn't worth the significantly higher ERA from your starters.

 

Honestly, I can see baseball going to some psuedo bullpen pitching staff within 30 years where there are no "starters". A team has thirteen pitchers, all relief pitchers who can go 2-3 innings at max effort. The first team to try this strategy might just find it to be worthwhile and cost-efficientl. The ERA a half a run lower is a real effect and it would be sustainable if you can find decent RPs which isn't all that hard.

[TruffleShuffle]

I keep hearing the Cubs brass mention how Lilly and Marquis are reliable innings eaters, that they are each likely to pitch over 175 innings and be around 200.

 

I understand that the Cubs didn't have that in their rotation last season and that not having guys that "can give you innings" will cause undo stress on a team's bullpen, but outside of that, can anyone think of any other benefit for being able to pitch close to 200 innings in a season?

 

prepare to be jumped all over

[RichHillIsABeast]

I keep hearing the Cubs brass mention how Lilly and Marquis are reliable innings eaters, that they are each likely to pitch over 175 innings and be around 200.

 

I understand that the Cubs didn't have that in their rotation last season and that not having guys that "can give you innings" will cause undo stress on a team's bullpen, but outside of that, can anyone think of any other benefit for being able to pitch close to 200 innings in a season?

 

It's very important when you have a ton of near ML ready, but not quite options. Guys that give you 200 innings at a league average ERA become quite valuable when you're looking at Marmol, Marshall, Mateo, and Guzman. One of those guys in a decent rotation is not a problem. 2+ of those guys (like last year) is a recipe for bad things.

 

Lilly and Marquis are not world burners. No one is claiming that. They do prevent the severe swings of rookie pitchers, who don't (generally speaking of course) know how to keep their teams in ballgames. Marquis won a ton of games w/o his best stuff last season. Some of that was run support and some of that was knowing how to pitch. Same with Lilly, who somehow managed to get away with being a flyball pitcher in a bandbox for years.

[USSoccer]

I keep hearing the Cubs brass mention how Lilly and Marquis are reliable innings eaters, that they are each likely to pitch over 175 innings and be around 200.

 

I understand that the Cubs didn't have that in their rotation last season and that not having guys that "can give you innings" will cause undo stress on a team's bullpen, but outside of that, can anyone think of any other benefit for being able to pitch close to 200 innings in a season?

 

It's very important when you have a ton of near ML ready, but not quite options. Guys that give you 200 innings at a league average ERA become quite valuable when you're looking at Marmol, Marshall, Mateo, and Guzman. One of those guys in a decent rotation is not a problem. 2+ of those guys (like last year) is a recipe for bad things.

 

Lilly and Marquis are not world burners. No one is claiming that. They do prevent the severe swings of rookie pitchers, who don't (generally speaking of course) know how to keep their teams in ballgames. Marquis won a ton of games w/o his best stuff last season. Some of that was run support and some of that was knowing how to pitch. Same with Lilly, who somehow managed to get away with being a flyball pitcher in a bandbox for years.

 

If you tell me I can have an up and down rookie with a high ceiling or a guy who's going to give you 200 mediocre to bad innings (like Marquis), I'll take the rookie every time.

 

I see no benefit to overpaying some veteran just because he doesn't get hurt, when a pitcher like Guzman or Marshall could give you a similar ERA at a fraction of the cost.

[Derwood]

I see no benefit to overpaying some veteran just because he doesn't get hurt, when a pitcher like Guzman or Marshall could give you a similar ERA at a fraction of the cost.

 

Sure, if that's a guarantee, but I don't buy it. I think Lilly/Marquis at 200 IP each would give you better years than Guzman/Marshall over 200 IP each. But that's MY opinion vs. yours...

[CUBZ99]

I keep hearing the Cubs brass mention how Lilly and Marquis are reliable innings eaters, that they are each likely to pitch over 175 innings and be around 200.

 

I understand that the Cubs didn't have that in their rotation last season and that not having guys that "can give you innings" will cause undo stress on a team's bullpen, but outside of that, can anyone think of any other benefit for being able to pitch close to 200 innings in a season?

 

It's very important when you have a ton of near ML ready, but not quite options. Guys that give you 200 innings at a league average ERA become quite valuable when you're looking at Marmol, Marshall, Mateo, and Guzman. One of those guys in a decent rotation is not a problem. 2+ of those guys (like last year) is a recipe for bad things.

 

Lilly and Marquis are not world burners. No one is claiming that. They do prevent the severe swings of rookie pitchers, who don't (generally speaking of course) know how to keep their teams in ballgames. Marquis won a ton of games w/o his best stuff last season. Some of that was run support and some of that was knowing how to pitch. Same with Lilly, who somehow managed to get away with being a flyball pitcher in a bandbox for years.

 

If you tell me I can have an up and down rookie with a high ceiling or a guy who's going to give you 200 mediocre to bad innings (like Marquis), I'll take the rookie every time.

 

I see no benefit to overpaying some veteran just because he doesn't get hurt, when a pitcher like Guzman or Marshall could give you a similar ERA at a fraction of the cost.

 

The problem with that analysis, is that you completely discount the veterans ability in the past to put together an entire season of pretty good numbers. I don't like the signing of Marquis, but as with every signing there is no telling what the Cubs are going to get until he gets out on the mound next year and pitches. Also, nobody has a clue what Marshall or Guzman are capable of at the major league level.

 

When the Cubs traded for Grudz, there was talk about how he was never going to be a decent player again. For some reason he thrived at Wrigley and turned his career around. Jones was a similar situation and now looks like a bargain in this market.

 

Rothschild is sticking his neck on the line by recommending Marquis and claiming to have fixed his mechanics. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until the season starts. If Rothschild is indeed one of the best pitching coaches that some claim he is, it is not impossible to see Marquis revert back to 2004 form and put up an ERA in the high 3's.

[C.C.]

I keep hearing the Cubs brass mention how Lilly and Marquis are reliable innings eaters, that they are each likely to pitch over 175 innings and be around 200.

 

I understand that the Cubs didn't have that in their rotation last season and that not having guys that "can give you innings" will cause undo stress on a team's bullpen, but outside of that, can anyone think of any other benefit for being able to pitch close to 200 innings in a season?

 

It's very important when you have a ton of near ML ready, but not quite options. Guys that give you 200 innings at a league average ERA become quite valuable when you're looking at Marmol, Marshall, Mateo, and Guzman. One of those guys in a decent rotation is not a problem. 2+ of those guys (like last year) is a recipe for bad things.

 

Lilly and Marquis are not world burners. No one is claiming that. They do prevent the severe swings of rookie pitchers, who don't (generally speaking of course) know how to keep their teams in ballgames. Marquis won a ton of games w/o his best stuff last season. Some of that was run support and some of that was knowing how to pitch. Same with Lilly, who somehow managed to get away with being a flyball pitcher in a bandbox for years.

 

If you tell me I can have an up and down rookie with a high ceiling or a guy who's going to give you 200 mediocre to bad innings (like Marquis), I'll take the rookie every time.

 

I see no benefit to overpaying some veteran just because he doesn't get hurt, when a pitcher like Guzman or Marshall could give you a similar ERA at a fraction of the cost.

 

So you would feel comfortable going into next season with a staff of:

 

Z

Hill

Guzman

Marshall

Prior\Miller

 

Not me.

[RynoRules]

Me either. I would, however, be comfortable with:

 

Z

Hill

Schmidt

Guzman/Marshall/Marmol

Prior/Miller

[C.C.]

Me either. I would, however, be comfortable with:

 

Z

Hill

Schmidt

Guzman/Marshall/Marmol

Prior/Miller

 

That's not being realistic.

[UK1679666180]

The Cubs look like they'll have avg. starting rotation (depending on Prior), they'll score probably around the 5th most runs in the NL, bullpen (depending on closer) will be avg. to good. Likely put them in the low to mid 80s as far as wins.

 

Definitely better for the team having someone that will be out there 33 times and 200IP, but is his production worth the area where his salary could've been allocated elsewhere?

 

Marquis will have to prove that, pitchers can't get smarter overnight and Rothschild can't force him to do something he doesn't want to do.

[C.C.]

The Cubs look like they'll have avg. starting rotation (depending on Prior), they'll score probably around the 5th most runs in the NL, bullpen (depending on closer) will be avg. to good. Likely put them in the low to mid 80s as far as wins.

Definitely better for the team having someone that will be out there 33 times and 200IP, but is his production worth the area where his salary could've been allocated elsewhere?

 

Marquis will have to prove that, pitchers can't get smarter overnight and Rothschild can't force him to do something he doesn't want to do.

 

That'll be good enough to win the Central.

[goonys evil twin]

I keep hearing the Cubs brass mention how Lilly and Marquis are reliable innings eaters, that they are each likely to pitch over 175 innings and be around 200.

 

I understand that the Cubs didn't have that in their rotation last season and that not having guys that "can give you innings" will cause undo stress on a team's bullpen, but outside of that, can anyone think of any other benefit for being able to pitch close to 200 innings in a season?

 

In and of itself, it's not worth anything. If all you do is pitch 200 innings, but pitch poorly, you aren't helping anything. Stability? Sure, but stable badness is not good. If you're giving 200 innings of averageness, that's a different story, that's a stability that can help. Aside from "giving the team a chance to win", it also could give the GM more comfort in making other trades, knowing he's not going to be scrounging for innings from starting pitchers.

 

The White Sox won the WS in 2005 on the strength of 5 average-to-good pitchers throwing 200 quality innings (counting McCarthy/Hernandez as one guy). But they came back with the same staff the next year and won a lot fewer games. And the Cubs staff can't even compare with that Sox rotation.

 

Basically, I think such pitchers are valued because they "give you a chance". But I don't think it's a very good chance. Relying on a collection of okay pitchers to pitch really well for 200 innings is hit-or-miss.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

Does anyone else worry about Lilly and his shoulder?

 

Or that an accomplishment for him would be pitching 7 innings?

Edited December 20, 2006 by KingKongvs.Godzilla

[Soul]

It's kind of difficult to imagine a pitcher putting in 200 innings if he is truly awful.

 

I think the # of innings is at least partially tied to performance. If a guy comes in and gives up 5 runs immediately every game, I doubt he's going to be left in the rotatation long enough to rack up the innings.

 

If you can get deep into the games enough, then I'd say you are at least putting out performances that are mediocre. When you compare that to what we had last year----with starters getting bombed in the early innings regularly, I guess I would have to go with the mediocre. But it's not particularly exciting, especially because I don't believe our offense will keep up with mediocre starting pitching.

[goonys evil twin]

It's kind of difficult to imagine a pitcher putting in 200 innings if he is truly awful.

 

I think the # of innings is at least partially tied to performance. If a guy comes in and gives up 5 runs immediately every game, I doubt he's going to be left in the rotatation long enough to rack up the innings.

 

If you can get deep into the games enough, then I'd say you are at least putting out performances that are mediocre. When you compare that to what we had last year----with starters getting bombed in the early innings regularly, I guess I would have to go with the mediocre. But it's not particularly exciting, especially because I don't believe our offense will keep up with mediocre starting pitching.

 

Marquis was about 6 innings from doing it.

 

5 runs immediately every game is quite extreme, and it's beyond the realm of this discussion. But a guy doesn't have to give up 5 to do a bad job.

 

But if you pay a guy several million to be a 200 inning guy, it's going to take a lot of suckiness on his part, and a lot of good pitching by any potential replacement, to convince most managers to make the switch. Highly paid bad pitchers get more than their fair shot at racking up the innings.

[soapy]

The Cubs look like they'll have avg. starting rotation (depending on Prior), they'll score probably around the 5th most runs in the NL, bullpen (depending on closer) will be avg. to good. Likely put them in the low to mid 80s as far as wins.

Definitely better for the team having someone that will be out there 33 times and 200IP, but is his production worth the area where his salary could've been allocated elsewhere?

 

Marquis will have to prove that, pitchers can't get smarter overnight and Rothschild can't force him to do something he doesn't want to do.

 

That'll be good enough to win the Central.

 

I wouldn't count on that, and neither should the Cubs. Especially for the amount of money they're spending.

[USSoccer]

I see no benefit to overpaying some veteran just because he doesn't get hurt, when a pitcher like Guzman or Marshall could give you a similar ERA at a fraction of the cost.

 

Sure, if that's a guarantee, but I don't buy it. I think Lilly/Marquis at 200 IP each would give you better years than Guzman/Marshall over 200 IP each. But that's MY opinion vs. yours...

 

I really don't think Guzman or Marshall would have to do much to outpace Marquis 2005 and 2006 numbers.

 

As Goony said, stable badness isn't worth much. I don't see how it pitching 200 bad innings is worth anything,

[C.C.]

The Cubs look like they'll have avg. starting rotation (depending on Prior), they'll score probably around the 5th most runs in the NL, bullpen (depending on closer) will be avg. to good. Likely put them in the low to mid 80s as far as wins.

Definitely better for the team having someone that will be out there 33 times and 200IP, but is his production worth the area where his salary could've been allocated elsewhere?

 

Marquis will have to prove that, pitchers can't get smarter overnight and Rothschild can't force him to do something he doesn't want to do.

 

That'll be good enough to win the Central.

 

I wouldn't count on that, and neither should the Cubs. Especially for the amount of money they're spending.

 

I woudn't count on it but what team in our division got better this off-season?

[CubColtPacer]

I see no benefit to overpaying some veteran just because he doesn't get hurt, when a pitcher like Guzman or Marshall could give you a similar ERA at a fraction of the cost.

 

Sure, if that's a guarantee, but I don't buy it. I think Lilly/Marquis at 200 IP each would give you better years than Guzman/Marshall over 200 IP each. But that's MY opinion vs. yours...

 

I really don't think Guzman or Marshall would have to do much to outpace Marquis 2005 and 2006 numbers.

 

As Goony said, stable badness isn't worth much. I don't see how it pitching 200 bad innings is worth anything,

 

2006 definitely, but 2005? I think Guzman or Marshall would have to do a little more than you think to become a slightly above average pitcher in the league like Marquis was in 2005 (4.13 ERA, 103 ERA+).

[goonys evil twin]

I see no benefit to overpaying some veteran just because he doesn't get hurt, when a pitcher like Guzman or Marshall could give you a similar ERA at a fraction of the cost.

 

Sure, if that's a guarantee, but I don't buy it. I think Lilly/Marquis at 200 IP each would give you better years than Guzman/Marshall over 200 IP each. But that's MY opinion vs. yours...

 

I really don't think Guzman or Marshall would have to do much to outpace Marquis 2005 and 2006 numbers.

 

As Goony said, stable badness isn't worth much. I don't see how it pitching 200 bad innings is worth anything,

 

2006 definitely, but 2005? I think Guzman or Marshall would have to do a little more than you think to become a slightly above average pitcher in the league like Marquis was in 2005 (4.13 ERA, 103 ERA+).

 

I think you're right, but I also think it's entirely possible for them to achieve that, either individually, or combined.

[CubColtPacer]

I see no benefit to overpaying some veteran just because he doesn't get hurt, when a pitcher like Guzman or Marshall could give you a similar ERA at a fraction of the cost.

 

Sure, if that's a guarantee, but I don't buy it. I think Lilly/Marquis at 200 IP each would give you better years than Guzman/Marshall over 200 IP each. But that's MY opinion vs. yours...

 

I really don't think Guzman or Marshall would have to do much to outpace Marquis 2005 and 2006 numbers.

 

As Goony said, stable badness isn't worth much. I don't see how it pitching 200 bad innings is worth anything,

 

2006 definitely, but 2005? I think Guzman or Marshall would have to do a little more than you think to become a slightly above average pitcher in the league like Marquis was in 2005 (4.13 ERA, 103 ERA+).

 

I think you're right, but I also think it's entirely possible for them to achieve that, either individually, or combined.

 

I agree-and I think if we sent out our 5 rookies as our starters next year, at least one of them would have a great year. I think all of them have the potential to put up a season like that, but the problem is that I'm not sure which one it would be. I think any one of them alone only has a small chance of being the starter who breaks out. If one of them does end up spending a significant amount of time in the rotation though, they shouldn't automatically be dismissed from having that type of season-just IMO, a heavy dose of skepticism instead.

[CubsWin]

I keep hearing the Cubs brass mention how Lilly and Marquis are reliable innings eaters, that they are each likely to pitch over 175 innings and be around 200.

 

I understand that the Cubs didn't have that in their rotation last season and that not having guys that "can give you innings" will cause undo stress on a team's bullpen, but outside of that, can anyone think of any other benefit for being able to pitch close to 200 innings in a season?

 

prepare to be jumped all over

Why? I'm asking a question.

 

Oh, that's right, its a message board. Never mind. I'm prepared. :wink:

[goonys evil twin]

I keep hearing the Cubs brass mention how Lilly and Marquis are reliable innings eaters, that they are each likely to pitch over 175 innings and be around 200.

 

I understand that the Cubs didn't have that in their rotation last season and that not having guys that "can give you innings" will cause undo stress on a team's bullpen, but outside of that, can anyone think of any other benefit for being able to pitch close to 200 innings in a season?

 

prepare to be jumped all over

Why? I'm asking a question.

 

Oh, that's right, its a message board. Never mind. I'm prepared. :wink:

 

Looks like the preparation was all for naught.