Grand Marquis

[cheapseats]

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.

 

I was joking, actually. The Cubs would be lucky to get a season like Neifi's 2005 out of Cesar Izturis.

 

Neifi was a decent option when Nomar went down. He shouldn't be a team's first option at short.

 

But if you just look at the Cubs and just look at the last few years, there are plenty of examples of guys who were on the 25-man roster who shouldn't have been in the majors. Just because a guy is a big leaguer doesn't mean he deserves to be one.

[Danny82]

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.

Or maybe their evidence wasn't as definitive as they thought it was?

 

I mean, by your logic, can the doomsday predictors ever be wrong? If the player they predict to perform poorly does so, they are right, but if he performs well, they had the stats in their favor to predict he would perform poorly and so they took the only reasonable position, even if they ended up wrong?

 

The fact of the matter is that statistics, while very useful tools (especially for evaluating performance), are not as definitive for predicting player performance as some would like to believe. These are human beings we are talking about, after all.

Edited March 13, 2007 by Danny82

[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.

 

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.

 

It's the only kind of logic that exists when you don't have 5 Cy Young award caliber pitchers in the rotation. You are talking like this is an ideal situation where a different option is available; Your response to me isn't rooted in the reality that Jason Marquis is already on the team. Lou will have to deal with his eventual bad games. I did not give him a contract... All I said was, now that we have him, he has to be managed correctly. That's what I'm saying!! :?

[davearm]

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.

You're making my point.

 

The guy who many thought was absolute garbage actually turns out to be above average. Even despite the reams of statistical evidence (allegedly) suggesting otherwise.

 

Could Marquis follow the same path? Sure seems plausible to me. Yet the doomsday predictors aren't really allowing for this possibility. For them, the jury's already in -- Marquis is trash, Hendry's an idiot, the contract's insane, blah blah blah.

 

These folks really ought to learn from recent history not to jump to conclusions so quickly.

[goonys evil twin]

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.

You're making my point.

 

The guy who many thought was absolute garbage actually turns out to be above average. Even despite the reams of statistical evidence (allegedly) suggesting otherwise.

 

Could Marquis follow the same path? Sure seems plausible to me. Yet the doomsday predictors aren't really allowing for this possibility. For them, the jury's already in -- Marquis is trash, Hendry's an idiot, the contract's insane, blah blah blah.

 

These folks really ought to learn from recent history not to jump to conclusions so quickly.

 

So after 1 slightly above average seasons by Jacque Jones you feel comfortable coming to the conclusion that he's good?

[davearm]

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.

You're making my point.

 

The guy who many thought was absolute garbage actually turns out to be above average. Even despite the reams of statistical evidence (allegedly) suggesting otherwise.

 

Could Marquis follow the same path? Sure seems plausible to me. Yet the doomsday predictors aren't really allowing for this possibility. For them, the jury's already in -- Marquis is trash, Hendry's an idiot, the contract's insane, blah blah blah.

 

These folks really ought to learn from recent history not to jump to conclusions so quickly.

 

So after 1 slightly above average seasons by Jacque Jones you feel comfortable coming to the conclusion that he's good?

I'm comfortable coming to the conclusion that the doomsday predictors that all but guaranteed that Jones would be absolutely terrible (and Marquis will be absolutely terrible) don't know as much as they think they know.

Edited March 13, 2007 by davearm

[NCCubFan]

I'm definitely keeping an open mind about Marquis. I wasn't for the signing at the time (and still am not), given that he was signed I'm certainly hoping he does better than expected. If he is decent and Prior and/or Miller healthy and effective (during the season, if not by Opening Day), then the Cubs have plenty of insurance in the event of injuries and/or some nice trade bait.

[abuck1220]

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.

You're making my point.

 

The guy who many thought was absolute garbage actually turns out to be above average. Even despite the reams of statistical evidence (allegedly) suggesting otherwise.

 

Could Marquis follow the same path? Sure seems plausible to me. Yet the doomsday predictors aren't really allowing for this possibility. For them, the jury's already in -- Marquis is trash, Hendry's an idiot, the contract's insane, blah blah blah.

 

These folks really ought to learn from recent history not to jump to conclusions so quickly.

 

So after 1 slightly above average seasons by Jacque Jones you feel comfortable coming to the conclusion that he's good?

I'm comfortable coming to the conclusion that the doomsday predictors that all but guaranteed that Jones would be absolutely terrible (and Marquis will be absolutely terrible) don't know as much as they think they know.

 

sorry, but i don't think jones exceeding expectations last season has any effect on marquis doing the same this season.

[davearm]

sorry, but i don't think jones exceeding expectations last season has any effect on marquis doing the same this season.

Of course it doesn't. But that's not the point at all.

[abuck1220]

sorry, but i don't think jones exceeding expectations last season has any effect on marquis doing the same this season.

Of course it doesn't. But that's not the point at all.

 

ok, so what is the point?

[cheapseats]

 

The guy who many thought was absolute garbage actually turns out to be above average. Even despite the reams of statistical evidence (allegedly) suggesting otherwise.

 

I hated the Jacque signing, but I never thought he would be "absolute garbage."

 

As far as Jacque being "above average," he was in the bottom 25% of qualified batters in OBP. and he had a .677 OPS against lefties. Predictions about his inability to get on base and his inability to hit lefties were spot on.

 

I hope Marquis has an incredible season and the Cubs win the World Series, but I'd feel a lot better about the Cubs' chances if Marquis wasn't pitching every 5th day.

[davearm]

sorry, but i don't think jones exceeding expectations last season has any effect on marquis doing the same this season.

Of course it doesn't. But that's not the point at all.

 

ok, so what is the point?

The doomsday predictors don't know as much as they think they know.

[davearm]

 

The guy who many thought was absolute garbage actually turns out to be above average. Even despite the reams of statistical evidence (allegedly) suggesting otherwise.

 

I hated the Jacque signing, but I never thought he would be "absolute garbage."

 

As far as Jacque being "above average," he was in the bottom 25% of qualified batters in OBP. and he had a .677 OPS against lefties. Predictions about his inability to get on base and his inability to hit lefties were spot on.

 

I hope Marquis has an incredible season and the Cubs win the World Series, but I'd feel a lot better about the Cubs' chances if Marquis wasn't pitching every 5th day.

If Marquis winds up with an ERA+ of 107 (matching Jones' OPS+ of 107 last year), I'll be happy to have him pitching every 5th day, and you should be too.

[David]

sorry, but i don't think jones exceeding expectations last season has any effect on marquis doing the same this season.

Of course it doesn't. But that's not the point at all.

 

ok, so what is the point?

The doomsday predictors don't know as much as they think they know.

 

That's fine. I'll keep going with the most likely outcome over the most optimistic one.

 

Predictions can't always be spot on. You should only go with the best conclusion you can come to based on the data available. The fact remains that there will be outliers and sometimes, the best prediction doesn't wind up being right. That doesn't make it a bad prediction. Looking at a prediction in hindsight is completely pointless.

[imb]

sorry, but i don't think jones exceeding expectations last season has any effect on marquis doing the same this season.

Of course it doesn't. But that's not the point at all.

 

ok, so what is the point?

The doomsday predictors don't know as much as they think they know.

 

I love how everything someone says that they think someone will be terrible, someone else shows up to say that they "might not". Really geniuses? You're telling me that there's a chance he might be bad, and also a chance he might be good. Well, gee, that sounds, almost like every other player in baseball.

 

Marquis last year was as bad as Pujols was good. If you start a thread about how Pujols is going to be great this year, I'm not going to come in the thread and say "Yeah, but he might be bad too! You dont know as much as you think you do!"

[David]

sorry, but i don't think jones exceeding expectations last season has any effect on marquis doing the same this season.

Of course it doesn't. But that's not the point at all.

 

ok, so what is the point?

The doomsday predictors don't know as much as they think they know.

 

I love how everything someone says that they think someone will be terrible, someone else shows up to say that they "might not". Really geniuses? You're telling me that there's a chance he might be bad, and also a chance he might be good. Well, gee, that sounds, almost like every other player in baseball.

 

Marquis last year was as bad as Pujols was good. If you start a thread about how Pujols is going to be great this year, I'm not going to come in the thread and say "Yeah, but he might be bad too! You dont know as much as you think you do!"

 

Exactly.

[davearm]

sorry, but i don't think jones exceeding expectations last season has any effect on marquis doing the same this season.

Of course it doesn't. But that's not the point at all.

 

ok, so what is the point?

The doomsday predictors don't know as much as they think they know.

 

I love how everything someone says that they think someone will be terrible, someone else shows up to say that they "might not". Really geniuses? You're telling me that there's a chance he might be bad, and also a chance he might be good. Well, gee, that sounds, almost like every other player in baseball.

 

Marquis last year was as bad as Pujols was good. If you start a thread about how Pujols is going to be great this year, I'm not going to come in the thread and say "Yeah, but he might be bad too! You dont know as much as you think you do!"

That'd be fine if folks were merely saying "I think Marquis will be bad."

 

But they're not.

 

They're saying that he definitively *will* be bad, that Hendry is an idiot, that this contract is horrible, that this is Todd Hundley redux, and on and on and on.

 

I think that's way over the top, and so I don't mind pointing out that the exact same sorts of things were being said last year about Jones, and they turned out to be wrong.

 

Open your mind to the possibility that Marquis might actually be an asset and a key contributor, is all I'm saying. He was just that for our biggest rival for two of the past three years, after all.

[goonys evil twin]

That'd be fine if folks were merely saying "I think Marquis will be bad."

 

But they're not.

 

They're saying that he definitively *will* be bad, that Hendry is an idiot, that this contract is horrible, that this is Todd Hundley redux, and on and on and on.

 

I think that's way over the top, and so I don't mind pointing out that the exact same sorts of things were being said last year about Jones, and they turned out to be wrong.

 

Open your mind to the possibility that Marquis might actually be an asset and a key contributor, is all I'm saying. He was just that for our biggest rival for two of the past three years, after all.

 

Wrong? Hendry did a terrible job at constructing a team that lost 90+ games, how were people critical of his moves wrong?

[davearm]

That'd be fine if folks were merely saying "I think Marquis will be bad."

 

But they're not.

 

They're saying that he definitively *will* be bad, that Hendry is an idiot, that this contract is horrible, that this is Todd Hundley redux, and on and on and on.

 

I think that's way over the top, and so I don't mind pointing out that the exact same sorts of things were being said last year about Jones, and they turned out to be wrong.

 

Open your mind to the possibility that Marquis might actually be an asset and a key contributor, is all I'm saying. He was just that for our biggest rival for two of the past three years, after all.

 

Wrong? Hendry did a terrible job at constructing a team that lost 90+ games, how were people critical of his moves wrong?

They were wrong about Jones. Stick to the subject.

[CubColtPacer]

sorry, but i don't think jones exceeding expectations last season has any effect on marquis doing the same this season.

Of course it doesn't. But that's not the point at all.

 

ok, so what is the point?

The doomsday predictors don't know as much as they think they know.

 

I love how everything someone says that they think someone will be terrible, someone else shows up to say that they "might not". Really geniuses? You're telling me that there's a chance he might be bad, and also a chance he might be good. Well, gee, that sounds, almost like every other player in baseball.

 

Marquis last year was as bad as Pujols was good. If you start a thread about how Pujols is going to be great this year, I'm not going to come in the thread and say "Yeah, but he might be bad too! You dont know as much as you think you do!"

 

It's not a question of possibilities though-it's a question of reasonableness. Could a healthy Pujols be bad this year? Sure-but it's so unlikely to be unreasonable. Could Marquis be a league average pitcher this year? Definitely-his track record, his possible return to being a ground ball pitcher, the fixing of his mechanical flaw, the Cubs infield defense and the high grass at Wrigley all give him a reasonable chance of being average. Was the 3.71 an aberration in 04? Probably-was the 06 an aberration? Probably as well. He is a pitcher that if he gets ground balls will most years be somewhere in between the low 4's and high 4's, which means that in most normal years Marquis is a just fine 4th-5th starter with some years being a good 3rd.

 

Now-he might not have returned to throwing primarily ground balls, but I don't think anyone can definitely say that for sure, especially with the limited ST evidence that seems to suggest that he is throwing his sinker well again. Could that change? Sure-but it is perfectly reasonable to think that it may stay that way.

[imb]

That'd be fine if folks were merely saying "I think Marquis will be bad."

 

But they're not.

 

They're saying that he definitively *will* be bad, that Hendry is an idiot, that this contract is horrible, that this is Todd Hundley redux, and on and on and on.

 

I think that's way over the top, and so I don't mind pointing out that the exact same sorts of things were being said last year about Jones, and they turned out to be wrong.

 

Open your mind to the possibility that Marquis might actually be an asset and a key contributor, is all I'm saying. He was just that for our biggest rival for two of the past three years, after all.

 

Wrong? Hendry did a terrible job at constructing a team that lost 90+ games, how were people critical of his moves wrong?

They were wrong about Jones. Stick to the subject.

 

Wrong about Jones for one year. Still a couple more left to go, so lets not go patting ourselves on the back yet. If he plays like last year for the next two years, I'll be happy. He wasn't great, but it's better than I expected.

 

As for Marquis, he was a contributor for the Cardinals last year, just like you said. Of course, he was absolutely terrible for them, so im not sure what you're saying there.

[CubColtPacer]

That'd be fine if folks were merely saying "I think Marquis will be bad."

 

But they're not.

 

They're saying that he definitively *will* be bad, that Hendry is an idiot, that this contract is horrible, that this is Todd Hundley redux, and on and on and on.

 

I think that's way over the top, and so I don't mind pointing out that the exact same sorts of things were being said last year about Jones, and they turned out to be wrong.

 

Open your mind to the possibility that Marquis might actually be an asset and a key contributor, is all I'm saying. He was just that for our biggest rival for two of the past three years, after all.

 

Wrong? Hendry did a terrible job at constructing a team that lost 90+ games, how were people critical of his moves wrong?

They were wrong about Jones. Stick to the subject.

 

Wrong about Jones for one year. Still a couple more left to go, so lets not go patting ourselves on the back yet. If he plays like last year for the next two years, I'll be happy. He wasn't great, but it's better than I expected.

 

As for Marquis, he was a contributor for the Cardinals last year, just like you said. Of course, he was absolutely terrible for them, so im not sure what you're saying there.

 

He didn't say that-he said that he was a contributor 2 out of the past 3 years, which would be referring to 2004 and 2005.

 

Also, Jones was one of the most under-paid right fielders that have already hit free agency in the league last year. He already has earned about half his money in just 1 of the 3 years-even if only 1 of the next 2 years are like last year, he'll earn his contract.

[imb]

That'd be fine if folks were merely saying "I think Marquis will be bad."

 

But they're not.

 

They're saying that he definitively *will* be bad, that Hendry is an idiot, that this contract is horrible, that this is Todd Hundley redux, and on and on and on.

 

I think that's way over the top, and so I don't mind pointing out that the exact same sorts of things were being said last year about Jones, and they turned out to be wrong.

 

Open your mind to the possibility that Marquis might actually be an asset and a key contributor, is all I'm saying. He was just that for our biggest rival for two of the past three years, after all.

 

Wrong? Hendry did a terrible job at constructing a team that lost 90+ games, how were people critical of his moves wrong?

They were wrong about Jones. Stick to the subject.

 

Wrong about Jones for one year. Still a couple more left to go, so lets not go patting ourselves on the back yet. If he plays like last year for the next two years, I'll be happy. He wasn't great, but it's better than I expected.

 

As for Marquis, he was a contributor for the Cardinals last year, just like you said. Of course, he was absolutely terrible for them, so im not sure what you're saying there.

 

He didn't say that-he said that he was a contributor 2 out of the past 3 years, which would be referring to 2004 and 2005.

 

Oops, I saw it as "a contributor for the past three years", my bad.

 

Still, I don't get what's so offensive about predicting a player will continue his downward trend into awfulness. Do these people do this for every prediction? Do you not fill out an NCAA bracket, because you don't know what's going to happen?

"Ohio State should win the tournament!"

"They might not, though!"

 

Well no kidding, thanks for the revelation.

[goonys evil twin]

That'd be fine if folks were merely saying "I think Marquis will be bad."

 

But they're not.

 

They're saying that he definitively *will* be bad, that Hendry is an idiot, that this contract is horrible, that this is Todd Hundley redux, and on and on and on.

 

I think that's way over the top, and so I don't mind pointing out that the exact same sorts of things were being said last year about Jones, and they turned out to be wrong.

 

Open your mind to the possibility that Marquis might actually be an asset and a key contributor, is all I'm saying. He was just that for our biggest rival for two of the past three years, after all.

 

Wrong? Hendry did a terrible job at constructing a team that lost 90+ games, how were people critical of his moves wrong?

They were wrong about Jones. Stick to the subject.

 

Jones hasn't fulfilled his contract yet. You are the one who decided to include criticism of Hendry under things people were wrong about. Those who were critical have proven to be much closer to right than those who have praised his moves.

 

You are also stretching the truth a bit by suggesting people thought Jones would be as bad as Hundley. Jones ended up a little better than I thought, but still not anything to write home about. His performance was within the range of expectations, albeit on the topside. He could easily prove to be much worse in 2007 and 2008. Jason Marquis has shown he can be god awful or halfway decent. People who aren't expecting much out of him aren't wrong for not expecting much.

[Danny82]

To IMB!:

 

Except the viewpoints that think Marquis has a chance to be a good #5 this year are based on information that has come to light this spring, i.e., that he is inducing ground balls at a very high level.

 

Taking that position about Marquis' prospects this season based on new information is different than simply stating "but he might not suck!" as you are overgeneralizing the position as being.

Edited March 13, 2007 by Danny82