Grand Marquis

[brinoch]

Marquis hasn't been stellar but he has shown an ability to keep his team in most games he pitches (which is a huge improvement over a last year). The only thing he'll be asked to do is limit the damage; the best way he can do that is by keeping the ball on the ground. He had a nightmare year with the Cardinals in 2006 because, among other things, he gave up over 30 homeruns.

 

I'd hardly call a career 4.55 ERA and a career 1.43 WHIP "keeping people in games." I'd call it an overrated starter and someone I don't want on my team. I remember in 2003 as we transitioned to NSBB from ESPN and Cubs.com how people said that Estes would keep the Cubs in games and would be a serviceable 5th starter. And, that we should give Estes a chance.

 

Well, there's a reason that we keep statistics -- it demonstrates the record of a player over time. And there's no greater predictor of success or failure than a player's statistics. Given Marquis' record, I'd be on the lookout for failure.

 

FYI, Shawn Estes, by comparison, boasts a grand 4.71 ERA and an incredible 1.53 WHIP over the course of his career.

 

So, in short, Marquis is better than Estes. Color me impressed. Hendry is gambling, and, in my opinion, Marquis was an awful signing (one among many by Hendry) because his past record is terrible. End of story.

 

Some of that is raised because of his 2006 stats. Nonetheless, he isn't going to be asked to be the ace of the staff, he's a rotation filler. He may be a gamble but he shouldn't prevent the Cubs from being successful in 2007. There is something positive to having serviceable starters/guys who can eat innings. In recent years, the Cubs have been hamstrung by pitchers who either can't make 32-35 starts or who can't throw 180-200+ innings. As a result, many games were lost in middle relief. Look at the NL teams that reached the postseason last year. Most of them had patchwork rotations.

 

The Cubs don't need 5 studs to win.

 

Given our offensive woes in the Hendry era, the only times we've won with regularity is when we've had at least 4 studs.

 

I understand that, realistically, there's something to a serviceable starter who goes out and doesn't take away your chance to win. Unfortunately, Marquis is not one of those guys. Unless, that is, our offense scores 5+ runs per game.

 

With the exception of 2004, the Cubs offense (under Hendry) has usually been short a bat. That doesn't appear to be the case this year. Marquis is serviceable and he will make all, if not most, of his starts. The team is going to be better off in the long run if it doesn't over tax its strength (the bullpen) and expose itself to middle relief.

 

Response part 1: DeRosa and Izturis.

 

Repsonse part2: I agree that the team will be better served by not overusing the bullpen. But in so arguing, you've undermined your guy, Marquis. Because if and when he struggles, he'll be pulled and that will ensure that the bullpen is overused.

[littleburr24]

I don't know why, since they pitch with different hands, but every time I hear or read Marquis, I think Estes.

 

I get surprised by every picture I see of Marquis pitching. I always swear he's a left handed pitcher, he just seems like a lefty, ya know?

[98navigator]

I said an average of 4 ER. Like anyone else, he will pitch better in some starts than others (likewise, the offense will have days when it is producing more or less than 4 runs). Marquis can be a very serviceable pitcher. The way you are describing the situation, we should expect to lose the majority of his starts. I don't believe that to be the case.

 

Let's do an average ERA of 4 over 7. Our bullpen ERA will probably be around 3.80-4.00. So let's assume a 3.90 bullpen ERA. Let's also assume .40 unearned runs per 9 innings (which is league average from last season). That means our team is going to give up an average of 5.27 runs a game when he's our starter. Last season ONE team in the National League averaged more than that many runs per nine innings, the Phillies at 5.30.

 

The Cubs don't have the good an offense, so we would expect the Cubs to lose more than half of the games started by him - also known as a majority of his games.

 

Just because we have a half-way decent offense it doesn't mean we should be content with a piece of crap like Marquis.

 

As horrible as he was last year the Cardinals were 15-18 in his starts. I'd take that but I expect him to be a bit better this year. As "bad" as he's been, last year he averaged more ER than at any other time in his career. I think he will turn in more respectable performances this year because of a mechanical change, change of scenery, and wanting to prove his worth. I think those things can, even marginally, help him perform to a higher standard.

 

With regard to your first point, St. Louis scored 4.82 runs per game last season (781 runs) while giving up 4.70 runs per game (762 runs total). Marquis, by himself, gave up 136 total runs. Marquis gave up 17.85% of the runs scored on the Cardinals over the entire season in 13.50% of the total innings pitched. (194.1 innings by Marquis vs. 1439.2 innings pitched by the Cardinals) That's bad.

 

And, for the second point, we have quantifiable facts about his previous performances in Atlanta and St. Louis. They indicate that he will be a poor pitcher. Meanwhile, you offer sandcastles in the sky.

 

Last year he also gave up more earned runs than at any other time in his career.

 

You can call it sand castles if you like but I'm not going to bemoan the signing on March 12th because, like I said, the Cubs can use the few things he does do well to their advantage; namely, eating innings and not missing starts. As bad as he was last year, the Cardinals still found a way to get to the postseason. It's a team effort. The Cubs can still find a way to win around half of his starts if he is used correctly and the games are managed correctly...

 

The Cards aren't successful year-after-year, under TLR, because they have the best offense and best pitching staff in the league... They mitigate their damages and find a way to motivate subpar players. That's not talent it's management. Like LaRussa, Piniella has shown the ability to be a good-in game manager so I expect to see an improvement in how players are used.

 

You make it sound like I don't know what he is; like I'm expecting 15-5 with a 3.50 ERA. That would be "sand castles." He's basically a .500 pitcher. The only thing I hope for is that he returns to getting ground balls so that the Cubs' improved infield defense has a chance to limit the damage.

[98navigator]

Marquis hasn't been stellar but he has shown an ability to keep his team in most games he pitches (which is a huge improvement over a last year). The only thing he'll be asked to do is limit the damage; the best way he can do that is by keeping the ball on the ground. He had a nightmare year with the Cardinals in 2006 because, among other things, he gave up over 30 homeruns.

 

I'd hardly call a career 4.55 ERA and a career 1.43 WHIP "keeping people in games." I'd call it an overrated starter and someone I don't want on my team. I remember in 2003 as we transitioned to NSBB from ESPN and Cubs.com how people said that Estes would keep the Cubs in games and would be a serviceable 5th starter. And, that we should give Estes a chance.

 

Well, there's a reason that we keep statistics -- it demonstrates the record of a player over time. And there's no greater predictor of success or failure than a player's statistics. Given Marquis' record, I'd be on the lookout for failure.

 

FYI, Shawn Estes, by comparison, boasts a grand 4.71 ERA and an incredible 1.53 WHIP over the course of his career.

 

So, in short, Marquis is better than Estes. Color me impressed. Hendry is gambling, and, in my opinion, Marquis was an awful signing (one among many by Hendry) because his past record is terrible. End of story.

 

Some of that is raised because of his 2006 stats. Nonetheless, he isn't going to be asked to be the ace of the staff, he's a rotation filler. He may be a gamble but he shouldn't prevent the Cubs from being successful in 2007. There is something positive to having serviceable starters/guys who can eat innings. In recent years, the Cubs have been hamstrung by pitchers who either can't make 32-35 starts or who can't throw 180-200+ innings. As a result, many games were lost in middle relief. Look at the NL teams that reached the postseason last year. Most of them had patchwork rotations.

 

The Cubs don't need 5 studs to win.

 

Given our offensive woes in the Hendry era, the only times we've won with regularity is when we've had at least 4 studs.

 

I understand that, realistically, there's something to a serviceable starter who goes out and doesn't take away your chance to win. Unfortunately, Marquis is not one of those guys. Unless, that is, our offense scores 5+ runs per game.

 

With the exception of 2004, the Cubs offense (under Hendry) has usually been short a bat. That doesn't appear to be the case this year. Marquis is serviceable and he will make all, if not most, of his starts. The team is going to be better off in the long run if it doesn't over tax its strength (the bullpen) and expose itself to middle relief.

 

Response part 1: DeRosa and Izturis.

 

Repsonse part2: I agree that the team will be better served by not overusing the bullpen. But in so arguing, you've undermined your guy, Marquis. Because if and when he struggles, he'll be pulled and that will ensure that the bullpen is overused.

 

1. Lou is willing to do what Dusty wouldn't; he's paying attention to OBP and committed to put the best team on the field. The Cubs lineup is still improved by the presence of a healthy Lee, Rameriz, and Soriano, in addition to whatever Murton/Floyd, and Jones can supply.

 

2. I'm sure there will be games when he exits early, it happens to all pitchers, but more often than not he will pitch enough innings to bypass middle relief.

 

The strength of this team's pitching staff still looks to be the back end of its bullpen.

[don_kessinger_was_good]

Some people will complain about anything.

 

I'm a huge Marquis supporter now because...he's a Cub. And so far, he looks just fine. He has a history when effective of getting a lot of ground ball outs and putting his heavy fastball over the plate for strikes. That's exactly what he's been doing. The guy has a track record of being durable and effective for a full season. Granted, last year he was awful, but how do we know that was not the aberration and 2004 is more the norm?

 

I think he'll be just fine, and I'm plenty pleased to have him punched into Lou's rotation as the 5 guy all season long. Give me an ERA+ of 100 to go with 200 IP and I'm satisfied. Anything better is gravy, and so far this spring, Marquis has shown that he brought his ladle to Arizona. ;-)

 

You all want something to complain about, I'd complain about the wisdom of paying $4MM a year to a former top pitcher who looks like he's become the Cubs' own version of Mark Fidrych. Fork, meet Mark. Mark, fork.

[A New Era]

Some people will complain about anything.

 

I'm a huge Marquis supporter now because...he's a Cub. And so far, he looks just fine. He has a history when effective of getting a lot of ground ball outs and putting his heavy fastball over the plate for strikes. That's exactly what he's been doing. The guy has a track record of being durable and effective for a full season. Granted, last year he was awful, but how do we know that was not the aberration and 2004 is more the norm?

 

Because he has a carreer 4.55 ERA and he sucks. And I just don't wanna!!

[David]

I don't know why, since they pitch with different hands, but every time I hear or read Marquis, I think Estes.

 

I get surprised by every picture I see of Marquis pitching. I always swear he's a left handed pitcher, he just seems like a lefty, ya know?

 

Marquis reminds me of Estes, too. But it's got nothing to do with thinking that Marquis seems like a lefty.

[Soul]

Some people will complain about anything.

 

I'm a huge Marquis supporter now because...he's a Cub. And so far, he looks just fine. He has a history when effective of getting a lot of ground ball outs and putting his heavy fastball over the plate for strikes. That's exactly what he's been doing. The guy has a track record of being durable and effective for a full season. Granted, last year he was awful, but how do we know that was not the aberration and 2004 is more the norm?

 

I think he'll be just fine, and I'm plenty pleased to have him punched into Lou's rotation as the 5 guy all season long. Give me an ERA+ of 100 to go with 200 IP and I'm satisfied. Anything better is gravy, and so far this spring, Marquis has shown that he brought his ladle to Arizona. ;-)

 

You all want something to complain about, I'd complain about the wisdom of paying $4MM a year to a former top pitcher who looks like he's become the Cubs' own version of Mark Fidrych. Fork, meet Mark. Mark, fork.

 

Not complaining about Marquis. Just holding my breath, that's all.

 

Yes, he's shown the ability to last an entire season. He's also shown the ability to royally suck.

 

As for Mark, I'm not sure what there is to complain about. Nothing is set in stone with him, and $4 million for a pitcher is peanuts in this market.

[CubColtPacer]

Some people will complain about anything.

 

I'm a huge Marquis supporter now because...he's a Cub. And so far, he looks just fine. He has a history when effective of getting a lot of ground ball outs and putting his heavy fastball over the plate for strikes. That's exactly what he's been doing. The guy has a track record of being durable and effective for a full season. Granted, last year he was awful, but how do we know that was not the aberration and 2004 is more the norm?

 

I think he'll be just fine, and I'm plenty pleased to have him punched into Lou's rotation as the 5 guy all season long. Give me an ERA+ of 100 to go with 200 IP and I'm satisfied. Anything better is gravy, and so far this spring, Marquis has shown that he brought his ladle to Arizona. ;-)

 

You all want something to complain about, I'd complain about the wisdom of paying $4MM a year to a former top pitcher who looks like he's become the Cubs' own version of Mark Fidrych. Fork, meet Mark. Mark, fork.

 

Not complaining about Marquis. Just holding my breath, that's all.

 

Yes, he's shown the ability to last an entire season. He's also shown the ability to royally suck.

 

I think that sums up Jason Marquis. So far, he has shown indications of the former, and the fact that it appears that it was a mechanical change that caused this change is also hopeful. At the same time, it is acknowledged that he when he starts to struggle, it is hard for him to bounce back from that.

 

The Cubs do have a few advantages for Marquis as long as he keeps up his ground ball ratio. The high grass, the good range of most of the Cubs infield, and what seems to be a quick DP combo so far should be able to get him out of many jams. The big question is if he can keep up that ground ball ratio-some years he's been near the top in the league in that, and some years he hasn't been. Which one he turns out to be this year will be a key indicator in his success, along with continuing to throw strikes and keeping his walk rate at least as low as it was his 3 years with the Cardinals.

[Soul]

Some people will complain about anything.

 

I'm a huge Marquis supporter now because...he's a Cub. And so far, he looks just fine. He has a history when effective of getting a lot of ground ball outs and putting his heavy fastball over the plate for strikes. That's exactly what he's been doing. The guy has a track record of being durable and effective for a full season. Granted, last year he was awful, but how do we know that was not the aberration and 2004 is more the norm?

 

I think he'll be just fine, and I'm plenty pleased to have him punched into Lou's rotation as the 5 guy all season long. Give me an ERA+ of 100 to go with 200 IP and I'm satisfied. Anything better is gravy, and so far this spring, Marquis has shown that he brought his ladle to Arizona. ;-)

 

You all want something to complain about, I'd complain about the wisdom of paying $4MM a year to a former top pitcher who looks like he's become the Cubs' own version of Mark Fidrych. Fork, meet Mark. Mark, fork.

 

Not complaining about Marquis. Just holding my breath, that's all.

 

Yes, he's shown the ability to last an entire season. He's also shown the ability to royally suck.

 

I think that sums up Jason Marquis. So far, he has shown indications of the former, and the fact that it appears that it was a mechanical change that caused this change is also hopeful. At the same time, it is acknowledged that he when he starts to struggle, it is hard for him to bounce back from that.

 

The Cubs do have a few advantages for Marquis as long as he keeps up his ground ball ratio. The high grass, the good range of most of the Cubs infield, and what seems to be a quick DP combo so far should be able to get him out of many jams. The big question is if he can keep up that ground ball ratio-some years he's been near the top in the league in that, and some years he hasn't been. Which one he turns out to be this year will be a key indicator in his success, along with continuing to throw strikes and keeping his walk rate at least as low as it was his 3 years with the Cardinals.

 

Probably true. The Cubs also have another advantage: assuming Guzman earns the 5th spot, they will have Prior, Miller, and Cotts waiting to bump Marquis out of the rotation if he starts getting plastered.

[rocket]

i hope nobody's expecting shutouts from marquis. but if he throws 7 innings a game and gives up 4 runs each outing, he's better than what we had last year.

 

if we're going to be happy with marquis putting up what amounts to a 5.14 ERA then we're in trouble.

[radarluv1]

i hope nobody's expecting shutouts from marquis. but if he throws 7 innings a game and gives up 4 runs each outing, he's better than what we had last year.

 

if we're going to be happy with marquis putting up what amounts to a 5.14 ERA then we're in trouble.

 

its a bad signing, no questions about it. i'd feel a lot better about him if was signed for 1 year/ 4M. an era slightly above 5 and the worst in the rotation is my guess. hopefully we have prior and guzman to bump him to the pen. if one of gooz or prior is pitching well, this team can still win 88-85 games with jason pitching every 5th day imho.

[abuck1220]

i haven't read through this whole thread, but does someone want to tell me why marquis is talked about as a groundball pitcher? he was at the bottom of the NL in g/f ratio last year and he led the NL in homers allowed.

 

yeah, when he's throwing groundballs he's good, but that seems to be like saying when juan pierre hits homeruns he's good.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

i haven't read through this whole thread, but does someone want to tell me why marquis is talked about as a groundball pitcher? he was at the bottom of the NL in g/f ratio last year and he led the NL in homers allowed.

 

yeah, when he's throwing groundballs he's good, but that seems to be like saying when juan pierre hits homeruns he's good.

 

Pierre was awesome 3 times last year.

[CUBZ99]

i haven't read through this whole thread, but does someone want to tell me why marquis is talked about as a groundball pitcher? he was at the bottom of the NL in g/f ratio last year and he led the NL in homers allowed.

 

yeah, when he's throwing groundballs he's good, but that seems to be like saying when juan pierre hits homeruns he's good.

 

Rothschild supposedly found some glitch in Marquis's mechanics and has him throwing an effective sinker this spring. Whether he can maintain his effective sinker throughout the season is the question.

[CubColtPacer]

i haven't read through this whole thread, but does someone want to tell me why marquis is talked about as a groundball pitcher? he was at the bottom of the NL in g/f ratio last year and he led the NL in homers allowed.

 

yeah, when he's throwing groundballs he's good, but that seems to be like saying when juan pierre hits homeruns he's good.

 

Obviously last year Marquis was not a groundball pitcher. The two years before that though, he finished 2nd and 16 in the NL in ground ball/fly ball ratio. The mechanical flaw that they supposedly fixed was to allow him to throw more ground balls. So far in ST, he's had 16 ground ball outs to only 5 fly ball outs. That's why people are saying that if he continues to get ground ball outs at anywhere near the ratio of what he's doing so far (over 3 is ridiculous-he could get that down to 2 to 1 and still be very good) then he'll be a very effective pitcher.

[Guest]

I'm not going to go real far out of my way to defend Marquis here, but when doing the calculation on the average of 4ER allowed in 7 IP, it is being assumed that those runs are evenly distributed across his starts. Part of the reason that he was able to pick up "wins" last year was the uneven nature of his results. If you look at the histogram of his results and go from there it is easier to see how he could "win" half his starts.

 

That said, this same thing is true for every pitcher in baseball and I'd prefer to utilize a pitcher who doesn't average out at 4ER / 7IP.

[UK1679666180]

I looked at his numbers last year, expectationwise, a team should've gone 13-17 in his starts with the remaining 2 or so starts up for grabs based on his great, good, indifferent, bad, and terrible starts.

[BigbadB]

If you look at the histogram of his results

 

Are you makin' up words again? [-(

[Amazing_Grace]

I'm not going to go real far out of my way to defend Marquis here, but when doing the calculation on the average of 4ER allowed in 7 IP, it is being assumed that those runs are evenly distributed across his starts. Part of the reason that he was able to pick up "wins" last year was the uneven nature of his results. If you look at the histogram of his results and go from there it is easier to see how he could "win" half his starts.

 

That said, this same thing is true for every pitcher in baseball and I'd prefer to utilize a pitcher who doesn't average out at 4ER / 7IP.

 

If he's having a lot of good starts where he gives up a few, and a lot of really terrible starts where he gets creamed, and getting an average of 4ER/7IP, can't the manager and pitching coach's decisions help the team a lot on days when he's having a terrible start? I mean, when you see he doesn't have it, you can pull him early, and if your long man is effective, you still have a chance to come back and win.

 

Marquis got 200+ innings last year, but maybe he shouldn't have, and we should be looking at Duncan/La Russa as contributing to his problems by leaving him out there too long when he obviously wasn't effective. This is another reason why I wouldn't mind seeing Guzman end up winning the long man role. If Marquis has a tank start, you basically have another starter so there's no issue with pulling him in even the first 3 innings.

[CubinNY]

I'm not going to go real far out of my way to defend Marquis here, but when doing the calculation on the average of 4ER allowed in 7 IP, it is being assumed that those runs are evenly distributed across his starts. Part of the reason that he was able to pick up "wins" last year was the uneven nature of his results. If you look at the histogram of his results and go from there it is easier to see how he could "win" half his starts.

 

That said, this same thing is true for every pitcher in baseball and I'd prefer to utilize a pitcher who doesn't average out at 4ER / 7IP.

 

If he's having a lot of good starts where he gives up a few, and a lot of really terrible starts where he gets creamed, and getting an average of 4ER/7IP, can't the manager and pitching coach's decisions help the team a lot on days when he's having a terrible start? I mean, when you see he doesn't have it, you can pull him early, and if your long man is effective, you still have a chance to come back and win.

 

Marquis got 200+ innings last year, but maybe he shouldn't have, and we should be looking at Duncan/La Russa as contributing to his problems by leaving him out there too long when he obviously wasn't effective. This is another reason why I wouldn't mind seeing Guzman end up winning the long man role. If Marquis has a tank start, you basically have another starter so there's no issue with pulling him in even the first 3 innings.

 

I can think of at least two occasions where TLR left Marquis out to dry after a bad start. I think one of which was against the White Sox. I could be wrong, but I think they were trying to "give him a lesson" or something. A lesson for what I don't know.

[jjgman21]

FWIW, I think maybe you would get your point across better here if you didn't talk down to people so much.

I got my point across and didn't call anyone stupid or [expletive]. I guess I shouldn't have said some people don't "get it" or some people are naive. It's nothing personal, as some of you know I almost never read who I am replying to. I guess that's bad.

 

I pretty much stopped posting here for getting threatened by the mods by using far less abusive language than you do.

 

where's his warning mods?

 

your point sucks. it changes the meaning of my point and is, quite simply, wrong. the most important thing for a pitcher to do is prevent runs from scoring. the most effective way to do that is to get people out instead of letting them reach base. how a pitcher does that is 100% completely irrelevent. K:BB is merely a peripheral stat. it is an indicator. it is a means to an end, with several other means to that same end.

 

hundreds of pitchers throughout the history of baseball have been effective without great K:BB ratios. the question is, how do you define effective. you want 2007 Jon Leiber effective? 2007 El Duque effective? 2007 Brad Penny effective? all outstanding K:BB ratios. I'll take 2007 Jeff Suppan, Jason Jennings, and Carlos Zambrano effective myself, but that's just me.

 

fact is, you look at a list of the best K:BB ratios from year to year, and you'll find some of the best and some of the worst pitchers from that year. by the same token, you look at a list of the best G/F ratios, it also will be populated with some of the best and some of the worst from that year. you like to use the "ugh" and "egad" and "some people just don't get it" openners to your responses. I say you are the one that needs these responses as you have gotten so tied up in stats you are failing to see the forest through the trees.

 

the greats do tend to do very well in the statistical catagories you love so much, but reasonable minds are not asking certain players, such as Jason Marquis, to be great. they are asking them to be effective, defined as better than league average for the role they fill on a team. Marquis will not be spotted any runs in any ballgames, but I guaranty you that if he keeps throwing groundballs as well as he has up until this point of ST 2007, he will outpitch many pitchers with far greater K:BB ratios than his, and the Cubs will win many of those ballgames.

[radarluv1]

I'm not going to go real far out of my way to defend Marquis here, but when doing the calculation on the average of 4ER allowed in 7 IP, it is being assumed that those runs are evenly distributed across his starts. Part of the reason that he was able to pick up "wins" last year was the uneven nature of his results. If you look at the histogram of his results and go from there it is easier to see how he could "win" half his starts.

 

That said, this same thing is true for every pitcher in baseball and I'd prefer to utilize a pitcher who doesn't average out at 4ER / 7IP.

 

If he's having a lot of good starts where he gives up a few, and a lot of really terrible starts where he gets creamed, and getting an average of 4ER/7IP, can't the manager and pitching coach's decisions help the team a lot on days when he's having a terrible start? I mean, when you see he doesn't have it, you can pull him early, and if your long man is effective, you still have a chance to come back and win.

 

Marquis got 200+ innings last year, but maybe he shouldn't have, and we should be looking at Duncan/La Russa as contributing to his problems by leaving him out there too long when he obviously wasn't effective. This is another reason why I wouldn't mind seeing Guzman end up winning the long man role. If Marquis has a tank start, you basically have another starter so there's no issue with pulling him in even the first 3 innings.

 

I can think of at least two occasions where TLR left Marquis out to dry after a bad start. I think one of which was against the White Sox. I could be wrong, but I think they were trying to "give him a lesson" or something. A lesson for what I don't know.

here's his starts last year. gave up 13 @ CWS and 12 vs ATL

warning, not suitable for small children

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/gamelog?playerId=4409

[jjgman21]

 

Because he has a carreer 4.55 ERA and he sucks. And I just don't wanna!!

 

ah, but let's look at the context of that 4.55 ERA. if in a different argument, let's say one about Andy Pettitte, folks like Mephistopheles will banty about how league average ERA in 2006 was 4.63. thus, Marquis' career ERA makes him better than the league average pitcher last year. further than that, Mephistopheles would add in a different context, relievers have better ERAs, so since Marquis is a starter, he would have been a borderline number 2 last year had he put up his career ERA.

[Guest]

 

Because he has a carreer 4.55 ERA and he sucks. And I just don't wanna!!

 

ah, but let's look at the context of that 4.55 ERA. if in a different argument, let's say one about Andy Pettitte, folks like Mephistopheles will banty about how league average ERA in 2006 was 4.63. thus, Marquis' career ERA makes him better than the league average pitcher last year. further than that, Mephistopheles would add in a different context, relievers have better ERAs, so since Marquis is a starter, he would have been a borderline number 2 last year had he put up his career ERA.

But the league average for MLB hasn't been 4.63 each year of his career, so you are confusing context by making this assertion.