Grand Marquis

[98navigator]

well, that was a mature response.

 

 

One of your posts claimed Marquis to be "trash" if that isn't hyperbole I don't know what is...

 

His response is as mature as you saying "sand castles in the sky" because you didn't agree with an opposing argument. You can have all the stats in the word and still not prove Marquis is the worst pitcher in MLB. Most importantly, it can not be proven that the Cubs are incapable of winning with Marquis on the staff.

 

It's one thing to provide statistical evidence to support a claim, it's quite another to present it in a condescending "god some of you just don't get it" manner. Statistics can only help to predict actions based on the past, they are not absolute so please stop talking down to people as if you can see the future.

[Mephistopheles]

for a guy who eats innings hes gone over 200 twice in his career and never over 210.

[Danny82]

for a guy who eats innings hes gone over 200 twice in his career and never over 210.

 

And has averaged over 200 a year over the past three.

 

Wouldn't you consider those to be relevant numbers?

[brinoch]

well, that was a mature response.

 

 

One of your posts claimed Marquis to be "trash" if that isn't hyperbole I don't know what is...

 

His response is as mature as you saying "sand castles in the sky" because you didn't agree with an opposing argument. You can have all the stats in the word and still not prove Marquis is the worst pitcher in MLB. Most importantly, it can not be proven that the Cubs are incapable of winning with Marquis on the staff.

 

It's one thing to provide statistical evidence to support a claim, it's quite another to present it in a condescending "god some of you just don't get it" manner. Statistics can only help to predict actions based on the past, they are not absolute so please stop talking down to people as if you can see the future.

 

Save one point, I'm going to respond to this post. I said that my argument was based on stats and predictions of the past, and that you were offering sand castles in the sky with your well nigh unreasonable optimism. Meph merely commented that he'd like sand castles in the sky.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Meph merely commented that he'd like sand castles in the sky.

 

As would I.

 

Seriously, where is the evidence that Marquis will somehow veer from his norm and suddenly become good? Is it the friend-of-a-friend account of Rothschild finding some miracle cure for his mechanics? Meph, devilish as he may be, has provided enough evidence to the contrary.

[Danny82]

Meph merely commented that he'd like sand castles in the sky.

 

As would I.

 

Seriously, where is the evidence that Marquis will somehow veer from his norm and suddenly become good? Is it the friend-of-a-friend account of Rothschild finding some miracle cure for his mechanics? Meph, devilish as he may be, has provided enough evidence to the contrary.

 

Well, the reason I am holding out hope is that I consider ERA to best statistic to measure a pitcher's value (my opinion) and, in 2004 and 2005, his ERA was what I consider to be very good for a fifth starter. I don't see why it is unreasonable to think he has a fair likelihood of duplicating one of those seasons this year rather than what he did in 2006.

[imb]

I don't think that ERA is a very good predictor of success if looked at in a vacuum.

[Danny82]

I don't think that ERA is a very good predictor of success if looked at in a vacuum.

 

Fine, that's your opinion.

 

Just out of curiosity, what was his ERA+ those years? Also at a level that would be very good for a fifth starter?

[Geech]

I don't think that ERA is a very good predictor of success if looked at in a vacuum.

 

Fine, that's your opinion.

 

No, it's basically fact. ERA in and of itself is not a good predictor of future success.

[98navigator]

well, that was a mature response.

 

 

One of your posts claimed Marquis to be "trash" if that isn't hyperbole I don't know what is...

 

His response is as mature as you saying "sand castles in the sky" because you didn't agree with an opposing argument. You can have all the stats in the word and still not prove Marquis is the worst pitcher in MLB. Most importantly, it can not be proven that the Cubs are incapable of winning with Marquis on the staff.

 

It's one thing to provide statistical evidence to support a claim, it's quite another to present it in a condescending "god some of you just don't get it" manner. Statistics can only help to predict actions based on the past, they are not absolute so please stop talking down to people as if you can see the future.

 

Save one point, I'm going to respond to this post. I said that my argument was based on stats and predictions of the past, and that you were offering sand castles in the sky with your well nigh unreasonable optimism. Meph merely commented that he'd like sand castles in the sky.

 

In either case, I feel it's unfair and insulting. "Sand castles in the sky" implies that one's reasoning is not based in reality. However, my posts weren't centered around any unreasonable expectations or optimism. I haven't been hoping for anything more than Marquis making his starts, pitching upwards of 200 innings, and that he keep the ball on the ground so that the Cubs' defense can help limit the offensive damage.

 

I didn't like the signing but he is a Cub for 3 years baring a trade. Wishing that he isn't a member of the staff is a moot point. He is here to stay... I think it is unnecessary pessimism to point out all of the reasons for failure. This thread started out in one direction (talking about his Spring success) and it got derailed into a sermon, of sorts, for why the Cubs are doomed for signing him.

 

As I pointed out earlier, and you are well aware, the Cubs have been repeatedly burned by pitchers who can not pitch every fifth day. For all of his faults, Marquis can eat innings (I digress...)

 

Now it is up to Piniella to maximize the things Marquis can do well.

[Danny82]

I don't think that ERA is a very good predictor of success if looked at in a vacuum.

 

Fine, that's your opinion.

 

No, it's basically fact. ERA in and of itself is not a good predictor of future success.

I'd like to see why, for starting pitchers, ERA isn't a good predictor of short term future success.

 

And the answer to my ERA+ question?

[98navigator]

Meph merely commented that he'd like sand castles in the sky.

 

As would I.

 

Seriously, where is the evidence that Marquis will somehow veer from his norm and suddenly become good? Is it the friend-of-a-friend account of Rothschild finding some miracle cure for his mechanics? Meph, devilish as he may be, has provided enough evidence to the contrary.

 

I think people are merely hoping that he is serviceable. There are two ways to view his 2006 numbers:

 

trending downward or aberration.

 

He is mediocre but 2006 was his worst in the last 3 seasons and his inability to throw consistent ground balls was a major reason for the struggles. It's no wonder that people like me are happy to see that he, appears to have, rediscovered his sinker.

[brinoch]

 

In either case, I feel it's unfair and insulting. "Sand castles in the sky" implies that one's reasoning is not based in reality. However, my posts weren't centered around any unreasonable expectations or optimism. I haven't been hoping for anything more than Marquis making his starts, pitching upwards of 200 innings, and that he keep the ball on the ground so that the Cubs' defense can help limit the offensive damage.

 

That's exactly the point. Despite post after post, analysis after analysis, you've consistently held an optimistic viewpoint of his potential, his likely performance, and his value to the Cubs. You say it yourself, despite the evidence, you are hoping...

 

Saying that you are offering/building sandcastles in the sky is neither insulting nor unfair. It essentially means that you are being unreasonably optimistic. Alternatively, I could say that you are hoping beyond hope, and despite all non-Spring Training evidence to the contrary, that he will perform better than he has in the past. It's certainly possible. But it's also quite highly unlikely.

 

Nothing wrong with optimism. I have plenty of it, as do you. Alas, it's been tempered by experience. For example, I hope the Cubs win the World Series. I just don't expect them to actually do so.

[CubsInNC]

I haven't been hoping for anything more than Marquis making his starts, pitching upwards of 200 innings, and that he keep the ball on the ground so that the Cubs' defense can help limit the offensive damage.

 

I didn't like the signing but he is a Cub for 3 years baring a trade. Wishing that he isn't a member of the staff is a moot point.

 

...

 

Now it is up to Piniella to maximize the things Marquis can do well.

 

QFT

[CubsInNC]

eh take this all with a grain of salt. assuming FIP and ERA and FIP-ERA are normally distributed (they are) i went and looked at all pitchers since 2004 in the NL with similar innings as Marquis (sample size alert).

 

On average their FIP ERA was .05 less than their actual ERA (Note: league averages in the two are defined to be average in the formula). The standard deviation for the difference between their FIP and actual ERA was 0.45. This means that about 2/3rds of the pitchers had a difference of at most half a run.

 

Jason Marquis' first two seasons were about 0.75 away meaning each of them have about a 8% chance of happening, assuming a nuetral park and a nuetral defense.

 

First looking at Cardinals NOT including Marquis: We get on average their ERA was about a .29 better than their actual ERA. The standard deviation was .37. This would give about a 10% chance on probability of it happening. If we throw in Marquis we're looking at a 20% or so chance of it happening. It doesn't seem all that likely, especially considering he was spot on last year.

 

Secondly, I ran correlations between several stats and FIP-ERA. The only thing statistically significant was LOB%. This makes since given that if you're for whatever reason allowing less runners to score than you should you're ERA is going to be lower than it "should" be. So I know some of you are thinking DOUBLE PLAYS FROM GROUNDBALL PITCHERS. Next I ran some correlations to LOB%, only one was signficant. Drumroll please....strikeout rates! And of course it was positively correlated. More Ks is good for it. Ironically enough the GB to LOB correlation is essentially zero, but it is ever so slighly inversely correlated - meaning less GBs means a higher LOB%. Granted it's essentially no correlation, but the sign means...something.

 

So obviously, there's nothing in his GB magic that leads him to leaving guys on base, is there? I should note that the second highest correlation to FIP-ERA was pitches per PA. Where more pitches meant your FIP-ERA was better. Oooh strike another one against guys like Marquis.

 

Now you're wondering about 2004. You can't believe it. His LOB% is the reason his ERA was such an outlier. His LOB% was 79.3%. That's better than any of the three seasons since 04 by Carpenter or Zambrano. He got LUCKY. There's NO way around that. His LOB% has fallen to like 66% last season, which is more where it was expected. His LOB% in 04 should have been about 70%. When you calculate that 10% of the runners he allowed that didn't score who "should" have you'll find some interesting stuff.

 

So really it more or less appears that his previous "magic" was not getting grounders as much as it was getting purely lucky in the "clutch" - something that is NOT a repeatable skill.

 

If you really want to dig behind the numbers some more. In 2004 with RISP the BABIP he allowed was a shockingly low .231 over 236 PA leading to a OBAA under .200. In 2005 that same split was .295 and in 2006 it was .335. Once again it's pure luck.

 

That's all it is. Luck.

 

Thanks. That analysis made it much clearer, to at least me. I'm just hoping he's a serviceable 4-5. I'd like to see him keep us in the game, most of the time and give us 200+ innings. Barring the "flaw in the mechanics" theory, that's about all I can or should hope for from him.

[rocket]

I don't think that ERA is a very good predictor of success if looked at in a vacuum.

 

Fine, that's your opinion.

 

Just out of curiosity, what was his ERA+ those years? Also at a level that would be very good for a fifth starter?

 

113 and 103.

[Amazing_Grace]

well, that was a mature response.

 

 

One of your posts claimed Marquis to be "trash" if that isn't hyperbole I don't know what is...

 

His response is as mature as you saying "sand castles in the sky" because you didn't agree with an opposing argument. You can have all the stats in the word and still not prove Marquis is the worst pitcher in MLB. Most importantly, it can not be proven that the Cubs are incapable of winning with Marquis on the staff.

 

It's one thing to provide statistical evidence to support a claim, it's quite another to present it in a condescending "god some of you just don't get it" manner. Statistics can only help to predict actions based on the past, they are not absolute so please stop talking down to people as if you can see the future.

 

Your post contains a link to the thread that contains your post, that contains a link to the thread that contains your post. It's like when you put two mirrors in front of each other and can stare into infinity.

 

Hehe, I know I know, the link is to a different page, but still :lol:

Edited March 13, 2007 by Amazing_Grace

[CubColtPacer]

A few points to add to the discussion:

 

Maybe Marquis was lucky in 04-that certainly is likely. For a pitcher like himself who lets the ball into play so often, he's at the mercy of when the ball bounces for a hit and when it goes for an out. Some years he's very lucky with that, some years he's very unlucky with it. 06 doesn't factor in to that part of the equation there though-he stopped being a ground ball pitcher in that year, and he got hammered because of it. So far, he seems to have corrected that so he won't be the same pitcher that he was in 06.

 

The question is, do the Cubs need him to replicate the luck of 04 in order for him to be successful? My answer is no, they do not. They don't need him to have a 3.71, but more of around a 4.5. He needs a lot less luck for that to happen.

 

The Cubs also have several advantages for Marquis. The high grass will keep some of those grounders from getting through. The infield defense is mostly excellent with a quick DP combo. For Marquis to take advantage of those advantages though, he has to return to being a ground ball pitcher like he was in 04 and 05. So far, he's been unbelievably good in GB/FO ratio. He doesn't have to be as good as he has been in ST or even close to it, but he does need to be in the top 1/3 of ground ball pitchers in order to be successful.

 

The last issue is his BB percentage. That has been slowly improving for Marquis with the exception of 2006 (which again, we hope has been erased by the mechanical flaw). If he just continues to slowly help his BB percentage, than Marquis can be a guy that depending on luck will usually have an ERA somewhere between 4 and 5.

[Danny82]

I don't think that ERA is a very good predictor of success if looked at in a vacuum.

 

Fine, that's your opinion.

 

Just out of curiosity, what was his ERA+ those years? Also at a level that would be very good for a fifth starter?

 

113 and 103.

 

Thanks.

 

Where do you guys get that info?

 

I couldn't find it on ESPN or mlb.com.

[rocket]

I don't think that ERA is a very good predictor of success if looked at in a vacuum.

 

Fine, that's your opinion.

 

Just out of curiosity, what was his ERA+ those years? Also at a level that would be very good for a fifth starter?

 

113 and 103.

 

Thanks.

 

Where do you guys get that info?

 

I couldn't find it on ESPN or mlb.com.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com

[98navigator]

 

In either case, I feel it's unfair and insulting. "Sand castles in the sky" implies that one's reasoning is not based in reality. However, my posts weren't centered around any unreasonable expectations or optimism. I haven't been hoping for anything more than Marquis making his starts, pitching upwards of 200 innings, and that he keep the ball on the ground so that the Cubs' defense can help limit the offensive damage.

 

That's exactly the point. Despite post after post, analysis after analysis, you've consistently held an optimistic viewpoint of his potential, his likely performance, and his value to the Cubs. You say it yourself, despite the evidence, you are hoping...

 

Saying that you are offering/building sandcastles in the sky is neither insulting nor unfair. It essentially means that you are being unreasonably optimistic. Alternatively, I could say that you are hoping beyond hope, and despite all non-Spring Training evidence to the contrary, that he will perform better than he has in the past. It's certainly possible. But it's also quite highly unlikely.

 

Nothing wrong with optimism. I have plenty of it, as do you. Alas, it's been tempered by experience. For example, I hope the Cubs win the World Series. I just don't expect them to actually do so.

 

There's nothing unreasonable about expecting a guy, who claims to be a sinker ball pitcher, to keep the ball on the ground. 2 out of the last 3 years he's been able to do it.

 

Edit: I use the word "hoping" because nothing is set in stone. But he has shown an ability to pitch, on average, 32 starts/ 200 innings (in the last 3 years). I'm "hoping" that continues...

[abuck1220]

who the hell cares if he makes a serviceable #5 starter? he's got a 3/$21 contract...those aren't the types of contracts you give to #5 starters. if he pitches like a #5 starter, he's a terrible waste of money.

 

i also love that people seem to think rothschild is going to magically turn him around. i mean, rothchild's certainly had the golden touch over the past few seasons. and we all know marquis was previously working under two pretty hapless pitching coaches...

[Guest]

I don't think that ERA is a very good predictor of success if looked at in a vacuum.

 

Fine, that's your opinion.

 

Just out of curiosity, what was his ERA+ those years? Also at a level that would be very good for a fifth starter?

In statistical forecasting (and I've done business consulting in this field for little companies like Toyota for the past 10 years, btw) there's a test to see whether the history of a certain value predicts future values in the same time series. It's called auto-correlation. ERA's predictive value of future ERA's exists, but it is very weak.

 

But you'll probably just call that my opinion, too. ;)

[CubColtPacer]

who the hell cares if he makes a serviceable #5 starter? he's got a 3/$21 contract...those aren't the types of contracts you give to #5 starters. if he pitches like a #5 starter, he's a terrible waste of money.

 

i also love that people seem to think rothschild is going to magically turn him around. i mean, rothchild's certainly had the golden touch over the past few seasons. and we all know marquis was previously working under two pretty hapless pitching coaches...

 

Well, a lot of people think he can make it to the 4.3-4.7 range this year, which would be a 3rd-4th starter type. If he does that, he could earn his money with the current pitching market.

 

Besides at this point, his contract is not very important. It's done with for good or bad-now the question is what is Marquis going to do this year, and can he be productive for the Cubs? Comparing him to the other 4th-5th starters in the league is very useful for that question because Marquis is still an asset if he outperforms some of those other 4th-5th starters-maybe not 7 million good, but he might not be an overall drag on the team this year.

 

Finally, Marquis is known as somebody who is receptive for a while to his pitching coaches and then he gets stubborn and refuses to take direction. Both the previous coaches managed to get at least 1 good year out of him-our hope is that Rothschild can do the same thing for a year, and then the team can decide what they are going to with him after the year.

[brinoch]

 

In either case, I feel it's unfair and insulting. "Sand castles in the sky" implies that one's reasoning is not based in reality. However, my posts weren't centered around any unreasonable expectations or optimism. I haven't been hoping for anything more than Marquis making his starts, pitching upwards of 200 innings, and that he keep the ball on the ground so that the Cubs' defense can help limit the offensive damage.

 

That's exactly the point. Despite post after post, analysis after analysis, you've consistently held an optimistic viewpoint of his potential, his likely performance, and his value to the Cubs. You say it yourself, despite the evidence, you are hoping...

 

Saying that you are offering/building sandcastles in the sky is neither insulting nor unfair. It essentially means that you are being unreasonably optimistic. Alternatively, I could say that you are hoping beyond hope, and despite all non-Spring Training evidence to the contrary, that he will perform better than he has in the past. It's certainly possible. But it's also quite highly unlikely.

 

Nothing wrong with optimism. I have plenty of it, as do you. Alas, it's been tempered by experience. For example, I hope the Cubs win the World Series. I just don't expect them to actually do so.

 

There's nothing unreasonable about expecting a guy, who claims to be a sinker ball pitcher, to keep the ball on the ground. 2 out of the last 3 years he's been able to do it.

 

Edit: I use the word "hoping" because nothing is set in stone. But he has shown an ability to pitch, on average, 32 starts/ 200 innings (in the last 3 years). I'm "hoping" that continues...

 

I don't care if he's a sinkerballer or a spitballer. He's just not that good. And you're right, there's nothing unreasonable about expecting him to keep it on the ground since that's apparently his forte. Except when he gives up more ER than any other pitcher in the NL. And except that even when he does get a lot of ground balls, he gives up a lot of baserunners -- check out his WHIP. It's not impressive.

 

We could easily find someone (well, except for a lefty BP pitcher) to pitch 200 innings and start 32 times. Maybe even from our own system. We didn't need to pay $21M over three years for this guy. This is worse than Estes. At least that was a year.

 

Cripes, keeping Pinto, Nolasco and Mitre instead of renting the terrible Pierre for a season would have been preferable to signing Marquis. (Don't let me get started, here, about Hendry's horrid deals.)