Grand Marquis

[jjgman21]

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.

 

because in 2005 and 2004 the metaphorical Juan Pierre hit 25-30 HRs per year.

 

Marquis G/F was 16 in the NL of all pitchers with 140+ IP in 2005.

Marquis G/F was 2 in the NL of all pitchers with 140+ IP in 2004.

 

 

look, I don't like his signing, but some of you are just taking the hatred of the guy too damn far.

[RichHillIsABeast]

Marquis will be fine. When Tony the Tigress left him out there to dry, it really shattered his approach. I think Marquis has even said he was trying to be too perfect and was very conscious of his ERA (after it ballooned thanks to those couple starts) instead of just pitching like he should. Add to that his mechanical flaws - why Duncan didn't fix them I don't know as they were fairly obvious - and you get a 6.02 ERA.

 

I wonder if the Cards just gave him the cold shoulder last season b/c his problems were very fixable (not throwing downhill for one). He sounds like a very hard worker to hear Rothschild tell it. Was there a personality clash with Duncan/LaRussa?

[RichHillIsABeast]

look, I don't like his signing, but some of you are just taking the hatred of the guy too damn far.

 

You've been listening to Lou too much. :lol:

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Crititcism of a player should never be considered "hatred." That's hyperbole.

[98navigator]

There's a lot of hyperbole in this thread...

[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.

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.

 

doesn't really matter. a 4.55 in 2005 would have made him an average number 3 starter. in 2004 it would have made him a very good number 3 starter. in 2003 it would have made him an average number 3 starter.

 

 

we need Marquis to be an better than average 4th or outstanding 5th starter.

[Guest]

There's a lot of hyperbole in this thread...

I think you're exaggerating. :D

[jjgman21]

delete

[98navigator]

Crititcism of a player should never be considered "hatred." That's hyperbole.

 

 

where's the quips like this when people say "I want to visit sand castles in the sky?" is hyperbole not allowed and being a sarcastic jerk perfectly ok?

[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.

 

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.

 

That's a good question. Leaving a starter in too long when he's struggling doesn't really help the situation in any way. Punishing a guy for pitching badly is a bit like spanking a kid for having a cold.. It's not like he's out there trying to give up 5 runs in 3 innings. Leaving him out there just puts more abuse on the guy's arm, increasing the likelihood of injury in the future, and pretty much guarantees the team loses the game.

 

Some guys are good enough to have success when they don't have their best stuff or they're off on their control. Marquis is not one of those guys and TLR should know better than that. If he was really trying to teach Jason a lesson, I think the only lesson that was likely to be taught is that TLR is a real jerk.

[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.

 

doesn't really matter. a 4.55 in 2005 would have made him an average number 3 starter. in 2004 it would have made him a very good number 3 starter. in 2003 it would have made him an average number 3 starter.

 

 

we need Marquis to be an better than average 4th or outstanding 5th starter.

I don't agree with your numbers. Just picking 2005 and recognizing there's some wiggle room in this analysis due to playing time (but I picked the guy who was there for the majority of the year. In some cases, the fill in did one heck of a lot better than the replacement, sometimes not):

 

1   P     Houston    Oswalt       2.94
2   C     Florida    Burnett      3.44
3   P     Atlanta    Tim Hudson   3.52
4   P     StL        Mulder       3.64
5   5     WAS        Livan        3.98
6   5     Milwaukee  Capuano      3.99
7   5     Mets       Benson       4.13
8   L     LA Dodgers weaver       4.22
9   L     Chicago    Maddux       4.24
10  C     Philly     Wolf         4.39 (Lidle 4.53)
11  L     SF         Tomko        4.48
12  L     Arizona    Brad Halsey  4.61
13  P     SD         Lawrence     4.83 (made playoffs, but 82-80)
14  L     pitts      fogg         5.05
15  L     Cincy      Ramon Oritz  5.36
16  L     Colorado   Wright       5.46

P = Made playoffs
C = contender
5 = .500+ team
L = losing record

Marquis at a 4.55 ERA in 2005 would have placed him 12th out of 16 NL teams for third starter ERA. There's also a very clear correlation here with having a superior third starter and record / likelihood of making the playoffs.

 

I agree that we don't need Marquis to be a quality 3 for us this year, but suggesting that a 4.55 ERA would have been one in 2005 is a fallacious argument.

[CubColtPacer]

 

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.

 

doesn't really matter. a 4.55 in 2005 would have made him an average number 3 starter. in 2004 it would have made him a very good number 3 starter. in 2003 it would have made him an average number 3 starter.

 

 

we need Marquis to be an better than average 4th or outstanding 5th starter.

I don't agree with your numbers. Just picking 2005 and recognizing there's some wiggle room in this analysis due to playing time (but I picked the guy who was there for the majority of the year. In some cases, the fill in did one heck of a lot better than the replacement, sometimes not):

 

1   P     Houston    Oswalt       2.94
2   C     Florida    Burnett      3.44
3   P     Atlanta    Tim Hudson   3.52
4   P     StL        Mulder       3.64
5   5     WAS        Livan        3.98
6   5     Milwaukee  Capuano      3.99
7   5     Mets       Benson       4.13
8   L     LA Dodgers weaver       4.22
9   L     Chicago    Maddux       4.24
10  C     Philly     Wolf         4.39 (Lidle 4.53)
11  L     SF         Tomko        4.48
12  L     Arizona    Brad Halsey  4.61
13  P     SD         Lawrence     4.83 (made playoffs, but 82-80)
14  L     pitts      fogg         5.05
15  L     Cincy      Ramon Oritz  5.36
16  L     Colorado   Wright       5.46

P = Made playoffs
C = contender
5 = .500+ team
L = losing record

Marquis at a 4.55 ERA in 2005 would have placed him 12th out of 16 NL teams for third starter ERA. There's also a very clear correlation here with having a superior third starter and record / likelihood of making the playoffs.

 

I agree that we don't need Marquis to be a quality 3 for us this year, but suggesting that a 4.55 ERA would have been one in 2005 is a fallacious argument.

 

He just said an average 3 starter, not necessarily a quality one in 2005. Here's the study from Hardball times using 2006 numbers:

 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/how-good-is-your-4-starter/

 

The average number 3 was 4.57 in the NL in 2006. Now, I know that in 2005 the league ERA was .13 lower-even if you take .13 off of the average number, that still leaves 4.55 within .11 of it-which means he would be much closer to being a 3 than a 4.

[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.

 

doesn't really matter. a 4.55 in 2005 would have made him an average number 3 starter. in 2004 it would have made him a very good number 3 starter. in 2003 it would have made him an average number 3 starter.

 

 

we need Marquis to be an better than average 4th or outstanding 5th starter.

I don't agree with your numbers. Just picking 2005 and recognizing there's some wiggle room in this analysis due to playing time (but I picked the guy who was there for the majority of the year. In some cases, the fill in did one heck of a lot better than the replacement, sometimes not):

 

1   P     Houston    Oswalt       2.94
2   C     Florida    Burnett      3.44
3   P     Atlanta    Tim Hudson   3.52
4   P     StL        Mulder       3.64
5   5     WAS        Livan        3.98
6   5     Milwaukee  Capuano      3.99
7   5     Mets       Benson       4.13
8   L     LA Dodgers weaver       4.22
9   L     Chicago    Maddux       4.24
10  C     Philly     Wolf         4.39 (Lidle 4.53)
11  L     SF         Tomko        4.48
12  L     Arizona    Brad Halsey  4.61
13  P     SD         Lawrence     4.83 (made playoffs, but 82-80)
14  L     pitts      fogg         5.05
15  L     Cincy      Ramon Oritz  5.36
16  L     Colorado   Wright       5.46

P = Made playoffs
C = contender
5 = .500+ team
L = losing record

Marquis at a 4.55 ERA in 2005 would have placed him 12th out of 16 NL teams for third starter ERA. There's also a very clear correlation here with having a superior third starter and record / likelihood of making the playoffs.

 

I agree that we don't need Marquis to be a quality 3 for us this year, but suggesting that a 4.55 ERA would have been one in 2005 is a fallacious argument.

 

He just said an average 3 starter, not necessarily a quality one in 2005. Here's the study from Hardball times using 2006 numbers:

 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/how-good-is-your-4-starter/

 

The average number 3 was 4.57 in the NL in 2006. Now, I know that in 2005 the league ERA was .13 lower-even if you take .13 off of the average number, that still leaves 4.55 within .11 of it-which means he would be much closer to being a 3 than a 4.

Go through and look at the teams in baseball reference and look at who the #3 ERAs were on each team. The way they put that study together is to lay out the starts in ascending order of starter ERA (by how many games he started) and then take the first 34 for the first starter, the next 34 for the second starter, etc. down the line. I really don't like that method of computation as it includes part of a starter as a #2 and part as a #3. I'd rather compare apples to apples and see how Marquis would have compared to other guys who were in the #3 slot for their teams.

 

There are a couple of teams where you could pick someone else other than who I picked, primarily ATL and PIT. In one case, I included Hampton as ATL's #2 starter, which pushed Hudson down to #3. In Pitt's case, Duke was incredible for his 14 starts, but I ignored him since he was there for a bit under 1/2 a season.

[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.

 

because in 2005 and 2004 the metaphorical Juan Pierre hit 25-30 HRs per year.

 

Marquis G/F was 16 in the NL of all pitchers with 140+ IP in 2005.

Marquis G/F was 2 in the NL of all pitchers with 140+ IP in 2004.

 

 

look, I don't like his signing, but some of you are just taking the hatred of the guy too damn far.

 

yeah, there was a lot of hate in my post.

 

so he was very good (w/ regard to his g/f ratio) in '04, average in '05 and terrible in '06. i guess i see the trend as getting progressively worse...but that may just be me hating marquis.

[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.

 

because in 2005 and 2004 the metaphorical Juan Pierre hit 25-30 HRs per year.

 

Marquis G/F was 16 in the NL of all pitchers with 140+ IP in 2005.

Marquis G/F was 2 in the NL of all pitchers with 140+ IP in 2004.

 

 

look, I don't like his signing, but some of you are just taking the hatred of the guy too damn far.

 

yeah, there was a lot of hate in my post.

 

so he was very good (w/ regard to his g/f ratio) in '04, average in '05 and terrible in '06. i guess i see the trend as getting progressively worse...but that may just be me hating marquis.

 

I wouldn't call 16th out of 80 or more starters average. Also, did you see my post about how they supposedly fixed a mechanical flaw, and so far in ST he has 16 ground ball outs versus 5 fly outs? That's why people are referring to him as a ground ball pitcher-he was a ground ball pitcher in the past, they supposedly fixed a flaw, and now the very early indications says that he is a ground ball pitcher again.

[Amazing_Grace]

The problem with Marquis isn't so much that he has gone from mediocre to crappy during his career, nor, in fact, is it that he's making 7 million dollars. The problem is that the Cubs signed him for 3 years, which was galactically stupid. It's a risky enough proposition to believe Marquis can turn it around for one season, but it's a bad bet altogether to tie up 21M over three seasons betting on Marquis being worth it all three years. If Hendry went to Vegas, he'd come back broke.

 

I'm not going too far out on a limb to say that the Marquis contract is going to be the worst the Cubs have signed since Hundley at least.

 

Now, I'm not hating on Marquis. I'm criticizing Hendry for paying him too much. Marquis can't help that Hendry is a fool of a GM willing to try anything to save his job. All he can do is pitch. If he keeps his ERA under 5, he'll exceed my expectations, and I'll have no problem with him. If his ERA is over 5, I'll suggest we have better options and say he should be benched, contract be damned.

 

People do criticize players too much when they are overpaid, because 100% of the time, some GM had to offer the contract before the guy signed it.

[brinoch]

Crititcism of a player should never be considered "hatred." That's hyperbole.

 

 

where's the quips like this when people say "I want to visit sand castles in the sky?" is hyperbole not allowed and being a sarcastic jerk perfectly ok?

 

Are you calling me a sarcastic jerk?

[CubColtPacer]

The problem with Marquis isn't so much that he has gone from mediocre to crappy during his career, nor, in fact, is it that he's making 7 million dollars. The problem is that the Cubs signed him for 3 years, which was galactically stupid. It's a risky enough proposition to believe Marquis can turn it around for one season, but it's a bad bet altogether to tie up 21M over three seasons betting on Marquis being worth it all three years. If Hendry went to Vegas, he'd come back broke.

 

I'm not going too far out on a limb to say that the Marquis contract is going to be the worst the Cubs have signed since Hundley at least.

 

Now, I'm not hating on Marquis. I'm criticizing Hendry for paying him too much. Marquis can't help that Hendry is a fool of a GM willing to try anything to save his job. All he can do is pitch. If he keeps his ERA under 5, he'll exceed my expectations, and I'll have no problem with him. If his ERA is over 5, I'll suggest we have better options and say he should be benched, contract be damned.

 

People do criticize players too much when they are overpaid, because 100% of the time, some GM had to offer the contract before the guy signed it.

 

I think there's a decent chance he would be worth 21 million over 3 years compared to the other pitching salaries that were given out this year-now, he may not be worth his contract each year, but he may be worth more than his contract in 1-2 of those years (for example, people were paying 10 million for 4.2-4.5 ERA's this year-so if Marquis can do that, he makes up 10 of the 21 right there). Now, you can certainly argue that all the pitchers were overpaid this offseason, but that's going to be a league problem-we'll see what happens with the market next year.

[Mephistopheles]

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.

 

the pitchers job is to prevent runs from scoring. K:BB has been shown to predict run prevention in the future better than previous run prevention. That's all that matters. It's not like ERA violated me sexually when I was a kid and I hold a grudge against it.

 

Anybody arguing that Marquis is useful is just wrong. Every single shred of statistical reasoning shows he's among the worst pitchers in the game. If you want to go against that, fine.

[sethuel1]

your point sucks.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Mizzou]

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.

 

the pitchers job is to prevent runs from scoring. K:BB has been shown to predict run prevention in the future better than previous run prevention. That's all that matters. It's not like ERA violated me sexually when I was a kid and I hold a grudge against it.

 

Anybody arguing that Marquis is useful is just wrong. Every single shred of statistical reasoning shows he's among the worst pitchers in the game. If you want to go against that, fine.

:roll: You look at one year which happens to be his worst year and conclude that? What's the point in that?

[Mephistopheles]

no one's looking at one year. im not beating a dead horse again. there's no reason to expect him to be anything useful. he's trash.

[Mizzou]

Well if you're not looking at one year, then you must be looking at his career. And to say that he's one of the worst pitchers in the game based off his career is completely inaccurate.

[Mephistopheles]

if you want to grade his level of sucking and the degree of "worst" be my guest. It's a waste of time. He sucks. Besides if your look at his PERA's or anything close to it you're going to find his career one near or above 5.00. that's enough to label him one of the worst pitchers in the game.

 

and dont bring up 2004. it's been slammed down more than enough times.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

To say he's among the worst might be a slight exaggeration, but the point remains that he's just not good.