Grand Marquis

[Danny82]

Yes, I am familiar with auto-correlation. I've had a few courses in statistics and degree in finance. But, it's been a few years since I've run any tests.

 

That said, what kind of tests were ran? I just find it hard to believe that running ERA for the past 3-5 years isn't predictive of what that pitcher's ERA will be for the next year (assuming same league and similar park).

 

And how useful is auto-correlation when it only runs a few years' worth of numbers? Obviously, auto-correlation numbers are much more predictive when you have numerous input values.

[98navigator]

Let me just say, I don't think anyone helped Marquis. He may have talked to Rothschild, and others, but if he is improved it will be because of his own tweaking...

 

On a separate note, Leo Mazzone is overrated. He looked great when he had a few future HOF'ers on the staff but not so brilliant in Baltimore. Duncan has a good track record but he too has had failures... On balance, he gets too much credit as well. In the TLR/Duncan era, the Cardinals typically sign ground ball pitchers and play stellar defense (which is a big contributing factor to the success of their pitching staff). Conversely, I think Larry Rothschild takes a beating for things that have been outside of his realm of control. Coaches can only do so much; it's the athletes that have to perform.

[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...

 

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.)

 

 

This isn't about whomever else we could have gotten for the money. I didn't want him.

 

You are looking at his last year (with reference to giving up the most ER in the NL). Whereas, I am looking at the past 3 seasons.

 

Like I said before, there are two different ways to view 2006; a downward trend or an aberration.

[Mephistopheles]

man some of you missed the point. i didnt start sandcastles in the sky!

[CubsInNC]

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.)

 

I don't think he's worth $7mil/yr for 1 year, let alone 3. I don't think Lilly, Meche, or any other of the FA pitchers this offseason are going to be worth what was paid to obtain them (Daisuke, the same including the full posting fee). At this point, bad move aside, he's on the roster, and barring a Todd Hundley deal next off-season, he's not likely going anywhere. That said, the best I can hope for, out of the guy is keeping the game close, and pitching 6+ every turn in the rotation. Yes, there are plenty of other cheaper options we *should* have utilized, but what is the likelihood that we would have given any of them much of a chance this year?

[Guest]

Yes, I am familiar with auto-correlation. I've had a few courses in statistics and degree in finance. But, it's been a few years since I've run any tests.

 

That said, what kind of tests were ran? I just find it hard to believe that running ERA for the past 3-5 years isn't predictive of what that pitcher's ERA will be for the next year (assuming same league and similar park).

 

And how useful is auto-correlation when it only runs a few years' worth of numbers? Obviously, auto-correlation numbers are much more predictive when you have numerous input values.

There have been studies run on ERA's auto-correlation across 30 years of data for all pitchers. A quick search on google didn't find the study I was looking for, but as I recall the results came up with a factor of around .3. They also ran the study on K's, BB's, K/BB, and a number of other "component" factors and found these had much more predictive power (around .7 to .8 for those factors, iirc). HR allowed was an exception to this as there seems to be a lot of variability in a pitcher's ability to control this factor year to year.

 

I wish I could find the study.

[Mephistopheles]

umm iirc year to year BB is around (r not r^2) .7, K/9 is around .8. ERA is around .3, normalized ERAs can get near .5. K:BB is in the .4s i think.

[nilodnayr]

Yes, I am familiar with auto-correlation. I've had a few courses in statistics and degree in finance. But, it's been a few years since I've run any tests.

 

That said, what kind of tests were ran? I just find it hard to believe that running ERA for the past 3-5 years isn't predictive of what that pitcher's ERA will be for the next year (assuming same league and similar park).

 

And how useful is auto-correlation when it only runs a few years' worth of numbers? Obviously, auto-correlation numbers are much more predictive when you have numerous input values.

 

In addition to the correlation argument, let me ask you how much control you think a pitcher has over his ERA.

[Guest]

umm iirc year to year BB is around (r not r^2) .7, K/9 is around .8. ERA is around .3, normalized ERAs can get near .5. K:BB is in the .4s i think.

Other than the k/BB, that jives pretty well with what I remembered. Do you remember the rate for hr/9?

[Mephistopheles]

no i dont

[nilodnayr]

which will be relevant when we start asking Marquis to be our Ace. he's not going to "dominate" with his stuff, nor will he be asked to. but he's certainly capable of living up to his contract and performing above what you hope for out of a 4th or 5th starter by striking out 4.5-6.0/9 and a K:BB around 1.75.

 

God some of you just don't get it. I'm not one to name a starting pitcher's role. The simple fact (FACT, NOT OPINION) is that every single starter in baseball has the same damn job. What difference is there between an "ace" and a "5th starter" when it comes to baseball? Are the Cubs spotted a run when their ace goes? No, they have the same job. Naming them means absolutely nothing and is a waste of time.

 

When I say dominance, I don't mean going out there and pitching like an "ace." K:BB dominance is no more than being the best pitcher you can be. There's maybe one or two other factors, but K:BB is one of the most important if not the most important thing when evaluating how good a pitcher is. Quite frankly, Marquis is not very good at it, never has been and never will be. The ability to strikeout guys without walking them is by far the most important skill a pitcher can possess. It has nothing to do with his "role" it has everything to do with his job - getting people out.

 

Capable to living up to his contract? Come on, let's not be naive, I'm not looking at his contract and saying he sucks. I'm looking at him and saying he sucks. It doesn't make a difference if he's making seven million or 1/7th of a million. At the end of the day he's the same pitchers so I am going to evaluate his pitching looking at that, not the number of zeroes on his paycheck.

 

He has three starts by my count.

 

Does it really make a difference? For the love of God it's nine innings. We all saw what Ryan O'Malley could do for about the same time.

 

:lol:

 

K/BB ratio is not one of the most important stats for pitchers. Maybe walks but not K/BB. Some pitchers just don't strike a lot of guys out and have good success. Look at Chien-Ming Wang from last year. He had one of the lowest K/BB ratio's but was one of the better pitchers in the league. You have to pitch to your strengths. Your job as a pitcher is to prevent runs. If you do that by striking out 15 guys then good job. If you do it by inducing 15 ground balls then good job. Just get the batters out.

 

Except, that for the most part, once a pitcher induces a groundball he has no control over the outcome of whether or not that groundball becomes an out or a hit. In fact, a pitcher that induces 15 groundballs is not even going to get 7 outs, whereas a pitcher that strikes out 15 guys gets 15 outs(groundball BABIPs are higher than FB...to what extent, I'm not sure). About 1 in 3 baserunners score, so you are looking at over 2 runs in 15 ABs for the groundball pitcher and 0 for the strikeout pitcher. I'll take the strike out pitcher.

 

And if you want to look at component ERA, the formula is below. While strike outs are not a direct factor, they indirectly affect the amount of balls put into play and therefore the amount of hits.

 

The formula for ERC as it appears in the 2004 edition of the Bill James Baseball Abstract:

 

ERC=(((H+BB+HBP)*PTB)/(BFP*IP))*9-.56

 

PTB, defined:

 

PTB=.89*(1.255*(H-HR)+4*HR)+.56*(BB+HBP-IBB)

[Mephistopheles]

umm iirc year to year BB is around (r not r^2) .7, K/9 is around .8. ERA is around .3, normalized ERAs can get near .5. K:BB is in the .4s i think.

Other than the k/BB, that jives pretty well with what I remembered. Do you remember the rate for hr/9?

 

 

i just had a spreadsheet and quickly ran it. this is from 72 to 93, i think.

 

just r

ERA	BABIP	HR/9	K/BB	BB/9	K/9
.2286	.2177	.3289	.5720	.6192	.7955

[wolf stansson]

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.

 

He has had consistently one of the best defenses in baseball behind him and yet has been incredibly bad.

 

The thing about Jason Marquis is that he just doesn't have the ability to consistently command his stuff. He has the great sinker, but game-to-game he can't keep it together. His control isn't great either, but specifically his command of his stuff is pathetic game-to-game. He'll rattle off 3 good games in a row then 4-5 horrendous games.

[98navigator]

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.

 

He has had consistently one of the best defenses in baseball behind him and yet has been incredibly bad.

 

The thing about Jason Marquis is that he just doesn't have the ability to consistently command his stuff. He has the great sinker, but game-to-game he can't keep it together. His control isn't great either, but specifically his command of his stuff is pathetic game-to-game. He'll rattle off 3 good games in a row then 4-5 horrendous games.

 

Inconsistency is key to mediocrity... If he were always bad he'd be out of the League. If he were good we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's up to the manager to limit the damage in his horrendous games while maximizing the success of his good games.

[cheapseats]

If he were always bad he'd be out of the League.

 

Not necessarily true.

 

See: Perez, Neifi.

[98navigator]

If he were always bad he'd be out of the League.

 

Not necessarily true.

 

See: Perez, Neifi.

 

Even Neifi isn't all bad. It's how he's used.

[rocket]

If he were always bad he'd be out of the League.

 

Not necessarily true.

 

See: Perez, Neifi.

 

Even Neifi isn't all bad. It's how he's used.

 

Some people pay more attention to reputation than results.

[Omar]

If he were always bad he'd be out of the League.

 

Not necessarily true.

 

See: Perez, Neifi.

 

Even Neifi isn't all bad. It's how he's used.

 

Its kind of like when you go fishing. Sometime the bait goes all the way in the fish's mouth, and other time it just hangs on just enough to capture the fish.

 

Neifi just (barely) crosses the first down marker with a booth review.

[Mephistopheles]

If he were always bad he'd be out of the League.

 

Not necessarily true.

 

See: Perez, Neifi.

 

Even Neifi isn't all bad. It's how he's used.

 

Some people pay more attention to reputation than results.

all of them seem to reside in the front office of the cubs :(

[98navigator]

If he were always bad he'd be out of the League.

 

Not necessarily true.

 

See: Perez, Neifi.

 

Even Neifi isn't all bad. It's how he's used.

 

Some people pay more attention to reputation than results.

 

Perez would be a decent 25th man but he shouldn't be in any team's everyday lineup. He is a decent defender as well. Again, the problem isn't so much him but how he is used.

[abuck1220]

If he were always bad he'd be out of the League.

 

Not necessarily true.

 

See: Perez, Neifi.

 

Even Neifi isn't all bad. It's how he's used.

 

agreed. he's used as a baseball player, which is clearly not what he was made for.

[98navigator]

If he were always bad he'd be out of the League.

 

Not necessarily true.

 

See: Perez, Neifi.

 

Even Neifi isn't all bad. It's how he's used.

 

Its kind of like when you go fishing. Sometime the bait goes all the way in the fish's mouth, and other time it just hangs on just enough to capture the fish.

 

Neifi just (barely) crosses the first down marker with a booth review.

 

LOL

[davearm]

Let me first say that I tend to fall on the (more) optimistic side of the fence when it comes to Jason Marquis, but I'll be the first to admit that he could turn out to be a total flop.

 

The point I wanted to make, though, is that one could go back through the last 8 or so pages of this thread and replace "Jason Marquis" with "Jacque Jones," and "ERA" with "OBP", and get back a thread that would be virtually identical to many that floated around here a year ago, all the way down to the Todd Hundley/worst contract in decades dramatics.

 

The nature of the argument then vs. now is so similar it's uncanny.

 

I think it's fair to say that in the case of Jones, the doomsday predictors have been incorrect -- so far at least.

[wolf stansson]

I think it's fair to say that in the case of Jones, the doomsday predictors have been incorrect -- so far at least.

He was barely above average offensively.

 

Even if the doomsday predictors said he would be below average, they had more evidence to say that than people had evidence to say he would be good.

 

The point is that both of these bad ballplayers didn't deserve their contracts and Marquis more specifically doesn't deserve his rotation spot over someone like Guzman or Marshall, especially at 7 mil a season.

[USSoccer]

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.

 

He has had consistently one of the best defenses in baseball behind him and yet has been incredibly bad.

 

The thing about Jason Marquis is that he just doesn't have the ability to consistently command his stuff. He has the great sinker, but game-to-game he can't keep it together. His control isn't great either, but specifically his command of his stuff is pathetic game-to-game. He'll rattle off 3 good games in a row then 4-5 horrendous games.

 

Inconsistency is key to mediocrity... If he were always bad he'd be out of the League. If he were good we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's up to the manager to limit the damage in his horrendous games while maximizing the success of his good games.

 

What kind of logic is this? "We know he's likely to blow up, so make sure Lou has the bullpen ready for the 65% of the games that Marquis starts because he's going to be horrendous"? Why not try and find a guy who's not going to be a disaster over half the time instead of having to manage for a guy who sucks?

 

He's bad. He's barely above replacement level. It doesn't matter if we signed him to be the "5th starter" or an ace. It was a waste of money for 3 seasons.

 

He might go out and have an average year, and people will exclaim "What a year!" in comparison to his past couple seasons, but that won't change the fact that he'll probably never be better than replacement level over the length of his deal, and we can do better than replacement level pitchers.