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?

 

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.

Yeah, I thought the warning was unnecessary. I was just asking a question, after all. And I appreciated your answer. Thank you.

 

The message board line was just a joke, goony.

[The Voice of Reason]

All this talk of Innings Eaters is giving me indigestion.

[RichHillIsABeast]

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.

 

John Schuerholz thinks IP is one of the most important stats in evaluating a pitcher.

[goonys evil twin]

John Schuerholz thinks IP is one of the most important stats in evaluating a pitcher.

 

If IP is accompanied by solid effectiveness, than it is extremely important. By itself, it's worthless, just like knowing a guy can throw 98 or that a player is really fast.

[fibro]

If you only have one or two dependable starters like the Cubs last year. It puts alot preasure on those guys to go along way in every game to save the bullpen. So hopefully Lilly/Marque it help not only save the pen but also take some the preassure off of Z to pitch late into every game.

[Soul]

John Schuerholz thinks IP is one of the most important stats in evaluating a pitcher.

 

If IP is accompanied by solid effectiveness, than it is extremely important. By itself, it's worthless, just like knowing a guy can throw 98 or that a player is really fast.

 

Marquis' IP went down in Aug/Sept, which was when his ERA tanked big time. He probably would have made the 200 IP if he would have had his August level of production (which admittedly is very very marginal---I'm not trying to defend Marquis here).

 

I think if Marquis reeks from the beginning he won't make 200 IP this year. He'll have to have some level of performance; maybe 1 good outing followed by 2 bad ones, something like that. If he doesn't, he's just going to get pulled too early.

[NoDak]

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.

 

I agree, Soul. While it is dangerous to just look at innings pitched alone to judge a player, most managers don't have pitchers who are at least somewhat effective throwing that many innings. They tend to get demoted to the pen, or sent down, or traded for unsalted peanuts.

[Mephistopheles]

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+).

Yeah they'd have to be traded to the Cardinals