Grand Marquis

[davearm]

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.

Well said, CCP.

 

You don't have to make any outlandish or unreasonable assumptions to reach the point where Marquis is league average or better (as he has been in two of the past three years).

 

And if he is league average or better, that makes him a strong #5, and worth $7M for a team like the Cubs.

[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.

 

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.

 

It's not a matter of the prediction-it's the people who are saying that Marquis has absolutely no chance to be decent to good (or a negligible chance). If you said "There is no way for anyone but Ohio State to win this tournament" I'd point out reasonable ways that other teams could win. Marquis is one of those players where it would be reasonable to say that he's going to be anything from good to horrible (I'm not sure that it would be reasonable to think he could be great, so I left that out)-the definitiveness of what some people think he's going to be to the point that they think that there is no way he could be anything else is what people were addressing.

Edited March 13, 2007 by CubColtPacer

[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.

 

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.

No, they're wrong for assuming he'll be god awful, as many here are.

 

Many of these same folks assumed the same thing about Jones a year ago.

[imb]

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.

 

Oh, right, the information gained from nine or so innings that he has thrown against a collection of minor leaguers, with some major leaguers tossed in. Is it the 1.44 WHIP that excites you?

 

San Diego is in luck, I mean, Termell Sledge is now a HR hitter.

[davearm]

It's not a matter of the prediction-it's the people who are saying that Marquis has absolutely no chance to be decent to good (or a negligible chance). If you said "There is no way for anyone but Ohio State to win this tournament" I'd point out reasonable ways that other teams could win. Marquis is one of those players where it would be reasonable to say that he's going to be anything from good to horrible (I'm not sure that it would be reasonable to think he could be great, so I left that out)-the definitiveness of what some people think he's going to be to the point that they think that there is no way he could be anything else is what people were addressing.

Right on again.

 

The issue here is, it seems for many the range of potential outcomes with Marquis never approaches positive territory. For them, it's just a question of exactly how bad the guy's going to be.

[A New Era]

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.

 

Oh, right, the information gained from nine or so innings that he has thrown against a collection of minor leaguers, with some major leaguers tossed in. Is it the 1.44 WHIP that excites you?

 

San Diego is in luck, I mean, Termell Sledge is now a HR hitter.

 

It's not who he's facing. It's that he's been able to consistantly throw the ground balls.

[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.

 

Oh, right, the information gained from nine or so innings that he has thrown against a collection of minor leaguers, with some major leaguers tossed in. Is it the 1.44 WHIP that excites you?

 

How many runs has he given up? When is the last time the Cubs lost a game because their WHIP was higher than the other team's?

 

Regardless of whether it is only 9 innings, it's three separate outings on three different days where he induced a very high rate of ground balls. I fully acknowledge that it is an extremely small sample size, but it's also the latest information at our disposal. Historically, he has had pretty decent success when he has induced a high rate of ground balls. Accordingly, there is nothing wrong with presenting the alternative that he might be alright this year if he keeps on getting groundballs. And much different than just stating "well he might not suck!" just for the hell of it, as you make it sound to be the case, wouldn't you agree?

Edited March 13, 2007 by Danny82

[UK1679666180]

This sounds like a semantical argument to me rather than anything that could produce something of value in any discussion about baseball.

 

For those caught up on wondering why some can only predict that Marquis will only be terrible, why don't you just ask them if there's a possibility that Marquis can pitch well enough to deserve a spot in the rotation?

[Guest]

If I had to predict how good Marquis will be over the course of the season, I'd say that the odds favor him being awful. However, there is a possibility that he'll be okay.

 

That's not worth 3/21. I was in favor of signing Marquis to a one year deal, but I'm sick that we had to commit three years to get him.

[imb]

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.

 

Oh, right, the information gained from nine or so innings that he has thrown against a collection of minor leaguers, with some major leaguers tossed in. Is it the 1.44 WHIP that excites you?

 

San Diego is in luck, I mean, Termell Sledge is now a HR hitter.

 

It's not who he's facing. It's that he's been able to consistantly throw the ground balls.

 

He's been able get groundballs for exactly 9 whole innings against players, many of whom will not be in the majors this year. Tell me you can tell the difference.

 

How many runs has he given up? When is the last time the Cubs lost a game because their WHIP was higher than the other team's?

 

He has succeed through nine whole spring training innings despite giving up too many baserunners. It means nothing so far. You can point out his low ERA (and I will just point out that he isn't pitching against major leaguers all the time) and I will point out that he can't even have a decent WHIP against these same hitters. Either way, it's nine innings in Spring training, it's meaningless.

 

Accordingly, there is nothing wrong with presenting the alternative that he might be alright this year if he keeps on getting groundballs. And much different than just stating "well he might not suck!" just for the hell of it, as you make it sound to be the case, wouldn't you agree?

 

I have no problem saying that he might be ok. I think its far more likely that he's terrible, though.

[wolf stansson]

It's not a matter of the prediction-it's the people who are saying that Marquis has absolutely no chance to be decent to good (or a negligible chance). If you said "There is no way for anyone but Ohio State to win this tournament" I'd point out reasonable ways that other teams could win. Marquis is one of those players where it would be reasonable to say that he's going to be anything from good to horrible (I'm not sure that it would be reasonable to think he could be great, so I left that out)-the definitiveness of what some people think he's going to be to the point that they think that there is no way he could be anything else is what people were addressing.

Right on again.

 

The issue here is, it seems for many the range of potential outcomes with Marquis never approaches positive territory. For them, it's just a question of exactly how bad the guy's going to be.

While it is true that I have a vendetta against Jason Marquis, it was never my point that he would DEFINITELY be bad. He'll probably bad.

 

My main point was that it was an idiotic deal for the simple fact that he more than likely won't be any better than Marshall or Guzman and will probably be much worse than those guys. Not only that, but he cost 21 million while the other two guys would cost you relatively nothing.

[sethuel1]

This is not really that hard. Marquis was appoximately average during a two year period where his peripheral stats said that he should probably be worse than average, and trended downward from those years into last year, which was an abomination that could have been predicted from his poor peripheral stats. This year, people are using those poor peripherals, along with a year of flat out sucking, to predict further sucking.

 

Why is this offensive?

 

And furthermore, why are some of you guys so dead set against these projections. It's been duly noted that while the correlation isn't one to one, there is , however, a very notable correlation with some of these stats, most of which point to general sucking on the part of Marquis.

 

Therefore, those of us that believe in the predictive power of statistics, while we would like to believe that Marquis won't suck, are mostly resigned to the fact that his past performances indicate that sucking is very likely.

[CubColtPacer]

It's not a matter of the prediction-it's the people who are saying that Marquis has absolutely no chance to be decent to good (or a negligible chance). If you said "There is no way for anyone but Ohio State to win this tournament" I'd point out reasonable ways that other teams could win. Marquis is one of those players where it would be reasonable to say that he's going to be anything from good to horrible (I'm not sure that it would be reasonable to think he could be great, so I left that out)-the definitiveness of what some people think he's going to be to the point that they think that there is no way he could be anything else is what people were addressing.

Right on again.

 

The issue here is, it seems for many the range of potential outcomes with Marquis never approaches positive territory. For them, it's just a question of exactly how bad the guy's going to be.

While it is true that I have a vendetta against Jason Marquis, it was never my point that he would DEFINITELY be bad. He'll probably bad.

 

My main point was that it was an idiotic deal for the simple fact that he more than likely won't be any better than Marshall or Guzman and will probably be much worse than those guys. Not only that, but he cost 21 million while the other two guys would cost you relatively nothing.

 

I have no problem with those statements whatsoever-if he's worth the contract considering the other people available will be much harder to justify. I'm not sure anybody was quibbling over what you said either because as you said you left open for the possibility that he will be all right from a baseball sense but just not likely to be worth enough to be anywhere near his contract.

[A New Era]

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.

 

Oh, right, the information gained from nine or so innings that he has thrown against a collection of minor leaguers, with some major leaguers tossed in. Is it the 1.44 WHIP that excites you?

 

San Diego is in luck, I mean, Termell Sledge is now a HR hitter.

 

It's not who he's facing. It's that he's been able to consistantly throw the ground balls.

 

He's been able get groundballs for exactly 9 whole innings against players, many of whom will not be in the majors this year. Tell me you can tell the difference.

 

He's locating his sinker well, who he's facing has no bearing on his mechanics, or his location. Tell me you can tell the difference.

[imb]

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.

 

Oh, right, the information gained from nine or so innings that he has thrown against a collection of minor leaguers, with some major leaguers tossed in. Is it the 1.44 WHIP that excites you?

 

San Diego is in luck, I mean, Termell Sledge is now a HR hitter.

 

It's not who he's facing. It's that he's been able to consistantly throw the ground balls.

 

He's been able get groundballs for exactly 9 whole innings against players, many of whom will not be in the majors this year. Tell me you can tell the difference.

 

He's locating his sinker well, who he's facing has no bearing on his mechanics, or his location. Tell me you can tell the difference.

 

Even if he is, he's done it for nine whole innings against a collection is sub-major league quality. You dont think it's easier to pitch against guys who arent very good?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

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.

 

Oh, right, the information gained from nine or so innings that he has thrown against a collection of minor leaguers, with some major leaguers tossed in. Is it the 1.44 WHIP that excites you?

 

San Diego is in luck, I mean, Termell Sledge is now a HR hitter.

 

It's not who he's facing. It's that he's been able to consistantly throw the ground balls.

 

He's been able get groundballs for exactly 9 whole innings against players, many of whom will not be in the majors this year. Tell me you can tell the difference.

 

He's locating his sinker well, who he's facing has no bearing on his mechanics, or his location. Tell me you can tell the difference.

 

I'm not a pitcher, but I bet if I was facing some little leaguers I could induce some weakly hit ground balls. On the other hand, I bet my ability would be more exposed against college hitters, they'd rough me up.

[CubColtPacer]

This is not really that hard. Marquis was appoximately average during a two year period where his peripheral stats said that he should probably be worse than average, and trended downward from those years into last year, which was an abomination that could have been predicted from his poor peripheral stats. This year, people are using those poor peripherals, along with a year of flat out sucking, to predict further sucking.

 

Why is this offensive?

 

And furthermore, why are some of you guys so dead set against these projections. It's been duly noted that while the correlation isn't one to one, there is , however, a very notable correlation with some of these stats, most of which point to general sucking on the part of Marquis.

 

Therefore, those of us that believe in the predictive power of statistics, while we would like to believe that Marquis won't suck, are mostly resigned to the fact that his past performances indicate that sucking is very likely.

 

Two players peripherals right here-both are on NL Central teams right now, both were on the same team in the years these were taken from, and one is expected to be average while the other one is not:

 

Year 1-

A-6.17 K/9, 1.97 K/BB, 2.17 G/F, 1.42 WHIP

B-5.27 K/9, 1.69 K/BB, 1.59 G/F, 1.37 WHIP

 

Year 2-

A-4.35 K/9, 1.45 K/BB, 1.59 G/F, 1.32 WHIP

B-5.28 K/9, 1.81 K/BB, 1.43 G/F, 1.38 WHIP

 

Here is year 3 for one of those 2 pitchers

B-4.93 K/9, 1.51 K/BB, 1.61 G/F, 1.45 WHIP

 

Based on those peripherals, what do you think of these two pitchers? Are they both destined to be pretty bad?

[sethuel1]

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.

 

Oh, right, the information gained from nine or so innings that he has thrown against a collection of minor leaguers, with some major leaguers tossed in. Is it the 1.44 WHIP that excites you?

 

San Diego is in luck, I mean, Termell Sledge is now a HR hitter.

 

It's not who he's facing. It's that he's been able to consistantly throw the ground balls.

 

He's been able get groundballs for exactly 9 whole innings against players, many of whom will not be in the majors this year. Tell me you can tell the difference.

 

He's locating his sinker well, who he's facing has no bearing on his mechanics, or his location. Tell me you can tell the difference.

 

I'm not a pitcher, but I bet if I was facing some little leaguers I could induce some weakly hit ground balls. On the other hand, I bet my ability would be more exposed against college hitters, they'd rough me up.

 

The key is to throw at the first little leaguer's head, just to get 'em all thinking. Then you pound the outside corner and they'll step in the bucket and hit weak grounders all day.

[Chocolate Milk]

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.

 

Oh, right, the information gained from nine or so innings that he has thrown against a collection of minor leaguers, with some major leaguers tossed in. Is it the 1.44 WHIP that excites you?

 

San Diego is in luck, I mean, Termell Sledge is now a HR hitter.

 

It's not who he's facing. It's that he's been able to consistantly throw the ground balls.

 

He's been able get groundballs for exactly 9 whole innings against players, many of whom will not be in the majors this year. Tell me you can tell the difference.

 

He's locating his sinker well, who he's facing has no bearing on his mechanics, or his location. Tell me you can tell the difference.

 

I'm not a pitcher, but I bet if I was facing some little leaguers I could induce some weakly hit ground balls. On the other hand, I bet my ability would be more exposed against college hitters, they'd rough me up.

 

The key is to throw at the first little leaguer's head, just to get 'em all thinking. Then you pound the outside corner and they'll step in the bucket and hit weak grounders all day.

 

:Takingnotes:

[Guest]

He's locating his sinker well, who he's facing has no bearing on his mechanics, or his location. Tell me you can tell the difference.

 

I'm not a pitcher, but I bet if I was facing some little leaguers I could induce some weakly hit ground balls. On the other hand, I bet my ability would be more exposed against college hitters, they'd rough me up.

I'd likely be arrested for injuring them after hitting several of them.

 

No control. :D

[wolf stansson]

This is not really that hard. Marquis was appoximately average during a two year period where his peripheral stats said that he should probably be worse than average, and trended downward from those years into last year, which was an abomination that could have been predicted from his poor peripheral stats. This year, people are using those poor peripherals, along with a year of flat out sucking, to predict further sucking.

 

Why is this offensive?

 

And furthermore, why are some of you guys so dead set against these projections. It's been duly noted that while the correlation isn't one to one, there is , however, a very notable correlation with some of these stats, most of which point to general sucking on the part of Marquis.

 

Therefore, those of us that believe in the predictive power of statistics, while we would like to believe that Marquis won't suck, are mostly resigned to the fact that his past performances indicate that sucking is very likely.

 

Two players peripherals right here-both are on NL Central teams right now, both were on the same team in the years these were taken from, and one is expected to be average while the other one is not:

 

Year 1-

A-6.17 K/9, 1.97 K/BB, 2.17 G/F, 1.42 WHIP

B-5.27 K/9, 1.69 K/BB, 1.59 G/F, 1.37 WHIP

 

Year 2-

A-4.35 K/9, 1.45 K/BB, 1.59 G/F, 1.32 WHIP

B-5.28 K/9, 1.81 K/BB, 1.43 G/F, 1.38 WHIP

 

Here is year 3 for one of those 2 pitchers

B-4.93 K/9, 1.51 K/BB, 1.61 G/F, 1.45 WHIP

 

Based on those peripherals, what do you think of these two pitchers? Are they both destined to be pretty bad?

Where is the third year for the other pitcher?

[CubColtPacer]

This is not really that hard. Marquis was appoximately average during a two year period where his peripheral stats said that he should probably be worse than average, and trended downward from those years into last year, which was an abomination that could have been predicted from his poor peripheral stats. This year, people are using those poor peripherals, along with a year of flat out sucking, to predict further sucking.

 

Why is this offensive?

 

And furthermore, why are some of you guys so dead set against these projections. It's been duly noted that while the correlation isn't one to one, there is , however, a very notable correlation with some of these stats, most of which point to general sucking on the part of Marquis.

 

Therefore, those of us that believe in the predictive power of statistics, while we would like to believe that Marquis won't suck, are mostly resigned to the fact that his past performances indicate that sucking is very likely.

 

Two players peripherals right here-both are on NL Central teams right now, both were on the same team in the years these were taken from, and one is expected to be average while the other one is not:

 

Year 1-

A-6.17 K/9, 1.97 K/BB, 2.17 G/F, 1.42 WHIP

B-5.27 K/9, 1.69 K/BB, 1.59 G/F, 1.37 WHIP

 

Year 2-

A-4.35 K/9, 1.45 K/BB, 1.59 G/F, 1.32 WHIP

B-5.28 K/9, 1.81 K/BB, 1.43 G/F, 1.38 WHIP

 

Here is year 3 for one of those 2 pitchers

B-4.93 K/9, 1.51 K/BB, 1.61 G/F, 1.45 WHIP

 

Based on those peripherals, what do you think of these two pitchers? Are they both destined to be pretty bad?

Where is the third year for the other pitcher?

 

I was going to post that and make a further point after someone evaluated those two on those peripherals that were stated. Is pitcher B better than Pitcher A on those numbers? How much better?

[CubinNY]

This is not really that hard. Marquis was appoximately average during a two year period where his peripheral stats said that he should probably be worse than average, and trended downward from those years into last year, which was an abomination that could have been predicted from his poor peripheral stats. This year, people are using those poor peripherals, along with a year of flat out sucking, to predict further sucking.

 

Why is this offensive?

 

And furthermore, why are some of you guys so dead set against these projections. It's been duly noted that while the correlation isn't one to one, there is , however, a very notable correlation with some of these stats, most of which point to general sucking on the part of Marquis.

 

Therefore, those of us that believe in the predictive power of statistics, while we would like to believe that Marquis won't suck, are mostly resigned to the fact that his past performances indicate that sucking is very likely.

 

Two players peripherals right here-both are on NL Central teams right now, both were on the same team in the years these were taken from, and one is expected to be average while the other one is not:

 

Year 1-

A-6.17 K/9, 1.97 K/BB, 2.17 G/F, 1.42 WHIP

B-5.27 K/9, 1.69 K/BB, 1.59 G/F, 1.37 WHIP

 

Year 2-

A-4.35 K/9, 1.45 K/BB, 1.59 G/F, 1.32 WHIP

B-5.28 K/9, 1.81 K/BB, 1.43 G/F, 1.38 WHIP

 

Here is year 3 for one of those 2 pitchers

B-4.93 K/9, 1.51 K/BB, 1.61 G/F, 1.45 WHIP

 

Based on those peripherals, what do you think of these two pitchers? Are they both destined to be pretty bad?

Where is the third year for the other pitcher?

 

I was going to post that and make a further point after someone evaluated those two on those peripherals that were stated. Is pitcher B better than Pitcher A on those numbers? How much better?

 

Then the obvious answer is the one who has the worse secondary stats.

 

The point that is lost in this not so original example is that every data set has an outlier or two. In other words, just because it happened once or twice doesn't mean it is likely to happen.

[CubColtPacer]

This is not really that hard. Marquis was appoximately average during a two year period where his peripheral stats said that he should probably be worse than average, and trended downward from those years into last year, which was an abomination that could have been predicted from his poor peripheral stats. This year, people are using those poor peripherals, along with a year of flat out sucking, to predict further sucking.

 

Why is this offensive?

 

And furthermore, why are some of you guys so dead set against these projections. It's been duly noted that while the correlation isn't one to one, there is , however, a very notable correlation with some of these stats, most of which point to general sucking on the part of Marquis.

 

Therefore, those of us that believe in the predictive power of statistics, while we would like to believe that Marquis won't suck, are mostly resigned to the fact that his past performances indicate that sucking is very likely.

 

Two players peripherals right here-both are on NL Central teams right now, both were on the same team in the years these were taken from, and one is expected to be average while the other one is not:

 

Year 1-

A-6.17 K/9, 1.97 K/BB, 2.17 G/F, 1.42 WHIP

B-5.27 K/9, 1.69 K/BB, 1.59 G/F, 1.37 WHIP

 

Year 2-

A-4.35 K/9, 1.45 K/BB, 1.59 G/F, 1.32 WHIP

B-5.28 K/9, 1.81 K/BB, 1.43 G/F, 1.38 WHIP

 

Here is year 3 for one of those 2 pitchers

B-4.93 K/9, 1.51 K/BB, 1.61 G/F, 1.45 WHIP

 

Based on those peripherals, what do you think of these two pitchers? Are they both destined to be pretty bad?

Where is the third year for the other pitcher?

 

I was going to post that and make a further point after someone evaluated those two on those peripherals that were stated. Is pitcher B better than Pitcher A on those numbers? How much better?

 

Then the obvious answer is the one who has the worse secondary stats.

 

The point that is lost in this not so original example is that every data set has an outlier or two. In other words, just because it happened once or twice doesn't mean it is likely to happen.

 

I'm just trying to point out that people are pointing out that Marquis's peripherals even from 2004-2005 were going to catch up to him and that last year was more indicative of the type of pitcher he was than 2004-2005 was. They are trying to say that even if he has 2004-2005 peripherals he's going to be a below average pitcher.

 

I disagree with that-I think pitchers of that type can succeed. For people with even better ground ball rates but otherwise peripherals are very similar, look at Jake Westbrook and Aaron Cook. Then if you go down a little bit more into Marquis's range, you have pitchers like Clay Hensley, Miguel Batista, Zach Duke, Jeff Suppan, Dontrelle Willis (his 2006 was very similar to 2004 for Marquis). All of them had similar peripherals in 2006 to Marquis in 2004-2005, and all of them had ERA's that I'm sure everybody would be happy for Marquis to have (all under 4.7 I believe, and some under 4). Those are not just outliers-high ground ball pitchers can and do be average to good major league pitchers with the type of peripherals that Marquis put up in 2004-2005. Suppan (the one in the example) has successfully done it for years now-I'm sure some of the others fall into that category.

 

Can he post 2004-2005 peripheral numbers? That's debatable, although the very early indications are encouraging on that, it's still a long way to go to be anything for sure. What I do question is if those peripherals necessarily say that he's going to be a worse than average pitcher, and I think a few pitchers in the league show that it's not as uncommon as it seems to have been said to have those peripherals and yet come out with an average to good ERA, with some pitchers able to do it year after year.

[Mephistopheles]

im still in a state of shock that people are defending marquis.