Gammons on the Cubs: "Best is yet to come"

[Rob]

Without looking at the stats, I can say that I'll eat an alligator if Rich Hill has already thrown 90 2/3 innings.

 

he said since he came back last year, not this year.

 

Do I still have to eat an alligator?

 

Just half... your choice of front or back.

[RichHillIsABeast]

Without looking at the stats, I can say that I'll eat an alligator if Rich Hill has already thrown 90 2/3 innings.

 

he said since he came back last year, not this year.

 

Do I still have to eat an alligator?

 

The gator misread your post.

 

* I'll remove that if it's too graphic for some people, but it was all over network tv. ** And that's a croc, not a gator.

[SouthSideRyan]

Well as long as it's a croc.

[Rob]

Without looking at the stats, I can say that I'll eat an alligator if Rich Hill has already thrown 90 2/3 innings.

 

he said since he came back last year, not this year.

 

Do I still have to eat an alligator?

 

The gator misread your post.

 

* I'll remove that if it's too graphic for some people, but it was all over network tv. ** And that's a croc, not a gator.

 

All over network tv? Who's arm is it?

[RichHillIsABeast]

All over network tv? Who's arm is it?

 

Well, the arm used to belong to Abe.

 

Seriously - the hand belongs to some zookeeper in Thailand. They tranquilized the croc and sewed the zookeeper's arm back on.

[Rob]

All over network tv? Who's arm is it?

 

Well, the arm used to belong to Abe.

 

Seriously - the hand belongs to some zookeeper in Thailand. They tranquilized the croc and sewed the zookeeper's arm back on.

 

Neat.

[Flames24Rulz]

Im convinced Gammons pulls a lot of his "inside" information out of his ass. Or, at least, 95% is speculative.

 

Yeah, I've noticed this as well. This article seems to suggest otherwise, but I've always gotten that impression from Gammons' articles.

[Rob]

Im convinced Gammons pulls a lot of his "inside" information out of his ass. Or, at least, 95% is speculative.

 

Yeah, I've noticed this as well. This article seems to suggest otherwise, but I've always gotten that impression from Gammons' articles.

 

I get the distinct impression that he's fed misinformation by every GM out there because they know he'll report it.

 

They cover for that by telling him about crap like Rothschild giving him a book.

[brinoch]

I deleted the pictures. Not only was it not particularly topical, but it was unnecessarily graphic.

[ConstableRabbit]

I love Gammons. For whatever reason, it seems like he's always had a soft spot for the Cubs. He's thought we were going to do something huge for many of the past 5-6 years.

[RynoRules]

I also love Gammons. He's got access but doesn't name drop or flaunt it, and I'd be surprised if he big-timed anyone. He seems like someone who just truly loves baseball. I like Kurkijan and Stark too, but I like Gammons quite a bit more.

 

Here's a thought for those of you who think he speaks out of his butt:

 

- You "know" that he has inside access to many a front office

- You "know" that those front offices feed him b.s. much of the time

- Then why blame Gammons? He's not the liar, he's the messenger. Its his job to analyze the info and have a take. You don't like it? Tune it out.

 

And, yes, he does have a soft spot for the Cubs. I recall back in 02' he said the Cubs e.t.a. - with future stars like Hill, Choi, etc. - was 2004.

 

Maybe Gammons is a jinx?

[Banedon]

This thread got weird.

[Soul]

Im convinced Gammons pulls a lot of his "inside" information out of his ass. Or, at least, 95% is speculative.

 

Yeah, I've noticed this as well. This article seems to suggest otherwise, but I've always gotten that impression from Gammons' articles.

 

I get the distinct impression that he's fed misinformation by every GM out there because they know he'll report it.

 

They cover for that by telling him about crap like Rothschild giving him a book.

 

Well, he's one of the few @ ESPN who will actually give the Cubs some positive pub, so I'll take it.

 

He's been in the business so long, ESPN is probably asking to him to pull whatever he wants out of his ass. So he obliges, then cashes his paychek :)

[BigbadB]

When before did Marquis have "stuff" that needed to be rediscovered? His one year with a sub-4 ERA I guess.

 

Didn't someone go through Jason's game log for last year and determine he would have had a lot better numbers except for a handful of real stinkers?

 

Granted, I certainly didn't want him on the Cubs and I'm not quite ready to step on the bandwagon just yet, but he has shown to be an effective pitcher at times in the past, even if it was 1/3 of an inning at a time. :D

 

I certainly like what he's done so far. And I won't complain if he keeps it up.

[RynoRules]

Marquis is the new Merker. Same last initial and everything.

[BigbadB]

Marquis is the new Merker. Same last initial and everything.

 

How ironic. I never noticed that before. To have the same first letter in the last name, and such a seldom used letter at that, just proves your theory.

[soccer10k]

When before did Marquis have "stuff" that needed to be rediscovered? His one year with a sub-4 ERA I guess.

 

Didn't someone go through Jason's game log for last year and determine he would have had a lot better numbers except for a handful of real stinkers?

 

Granted, I certainly didn't want him on the Cubs and I'm not quite ready to step on the bandwagon just yet, but he has shown to be an effective pitcher at times in the past, even if it was 1/3 of an inning at a time. :D

 

I certainly like what he's done so far. And I won't complain if he keeps it up.

 

Well, he had the two starts where LaRussa basically left him out to dry because the bullpen was completely taxed from the game before.

 

On June 20, Mulder only went 2 1/3 and the Cards lost 20-6 to the White Sox. The next day Marquis pitched and gave up 13 runs in 5 innings. On July 17, Weaver only went 4 innings and the Cards lost 15-3 to the Braves. The next day Marquis went 5+ and gave up 12 runs.

 

If you take those two starts out of the equation, he ends up with an ERA of 5.13. If he only gives up 5 runs in each of those starts in the same number of innings pitched, he has an ERA of 5.33. While these ERA's certainly aren't great by any means, they're a hell of a lot better than the 6.02 he put up.

 

BTW, as an extra little stat I didn't notice before, Marquis game scores for these two games were -11 and -7 for the two games.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

When before did Marquis have "stuff" that needed to be rediscovered? His one year with a sub-4 ERA I guess.

 

Didn't someone go through Jason's game log for last year and determine he would have had a lot better numbers except for a handful of real stinkers?

 

Granted, I certainly didn't want him on the Cubs and I'm not quite ready to step on the bandwagon just yet, but he has shown to be an effective pitcher at times in the past, even if it was 1/3 of an inning at a time. :D

 

I certainly like what he's done so far. And I won't complain if he keeps it up.

 

Well, he had the two starts where LaRussa basically left him out to dry because the bullpen was completely taxed from the game before.

 

On June 20, Mulder only went 2 1/3 and the Cards lost 20-6 to the White Sox. The next day Marquis pitched and gave up 13 runs in 5 innings. On July 17, Weaver only went 4 innings and the Cards lost 15-3 to the Braves. The next day Marquis went 5+ and gave up 12 runs.

 

If you take those two starts out of the equation, he ends up with an ERA of 5.13. If he only gives up 5 runs in each of those starts in the same number of innings pitched, he has an ERA of 5.33. While these ERA's certainly aren't great by any means, they're a hell of a lot better than the 6.02 he put up.

 

BTW, as an extra little stat I didn't notice before, Marquis game scores for these two games were -11 and -7 for the two games.

 

And if you take out those 2 starts, you should also take out his 2 best starts.

[Derwood]

When before did Marquis have "stuff" that needed to be rediscovered? His one year with a sub-4 ERA I guess.

 

Didn't someone go through Jason's game log for last year and determine he would have had a lot better numbers except for a handful of real stinkers?

 

Granted, I certainly didn't want him on the Cubs and I'm not quite ready to step on the bandwagon just yet, but he has shown to be an effective pitcher at times in the past, even if it was 1/3 of an inning at a time. :D

 

I certainly like what he's done so far. And I won't complain if he keeps it up.

 

Well, he had the two starts where LaRussa basically left him out to dry because the bullpen was completely taxed from the game before.

 

On June 20, Mulder only went 2 1/3 and the Cards lost 20-6 to the White Sox. The next day Marquis pitched and gave up 13 runs in 5 innings. On July 17, Weaver only went 4 innings and the Cards lost 15-3 to the Braves. The next day Marquis went 5+ and gave up 12 runs.

 

If you take those two starts out of the equation, he ends up with an ERA of 5.13. If he only gives up 5 runs in each of those starts in the same number of innings pitched, he has an ERA of 5.33. While these ERA's certainly aren't great by any means, they're a hell of a lot better than the 6.02 he put up.

 

BTW, as an extra little stat I didn't notice before, Marquis game scores for these two games were -11 and -7 for the two games.

 

And if you take out those 2 starts, you should also take out his 2 best starts.

 

and if he didn't pitch at all, this ERA would have been 0.00 :shock:

[Ding Dong Johnson]

When before did Marquis have "stuff" that needed to be rediscovered? His one year with a sub-4 ERA I guess.

 

Didn't someone go through Jason's game log for last year and determine he would have had a lot better numbers except for a handful of real stinkers?

 

Granted, I certainly didn't want him on the Cubs and I'm not quite ready to step on the bandwagon just yet, but he has shown to be an effective pitcher at times in the past, even if it was 1/3 of an inning at a time. :D

 

I certainly like what he's done so far. And I won't complain if he keeps it up.

 

Well, he had the two starts where LaRussa basically left him out to dry because the bullpen was completely taxed from the game before.

 

On June 20, Mulder only went 2 1/3 and the Cards lost 20-6 to the White Sox. The next day Marquis pitched and gave up 13 runs in 5 innings. On July 17, Weaver only went 4 innings and the Cards lost 15-3 to the Braves. The next day Marquis went 5+ and gave up 12 runs.

 

If you take those two starts out of the equation, he ends up with an ERA of 5.13. If he only gives up 5 runs in each of those starts in the same number of innings pitched, he has an ERA of 5.33. While these ERA's certainly aren't great by any means, they're a hell of a lot better than the 6.02 he put up.

 

BTW, as an extra little stat I didn't notice before, Marquis game scores for these two games were -11 and -7 for the two games.

 

And if you take out those 2 starts, you should also take out his 2 best starts.

 

and if he didn't pitch at all, this ERA would have been 0.00 :shock:

 

Hot damn, somebody give him $20 million.

[Electron Blue]

When before did Marquis have "stuff" that needed to be rediscovered? His one year with a sub-4 ERA I guess.

 

Didn't someone go through Jason's game log for last year and determine he would have had a lot better numbers except for a handful of real stinkers?

 

Granted, I certainly didn't want him on the Cubs and I'm not quite ready to step on the bandwagon just yet, but he has shown to be an effective pitcher at times in the past, even if it was 1/3 of an inning at a time. :D

 

I certainly like what he's done so far. And I won't complain if he keeps it up.

 

Well, he had the two starts where LaRussa basically left him out to dry because the bullpen was completely taxed from the game before.

 

On June 20, Mulder only went 2 1/3 and the Cards lost 20-6 to the White Sox. The next day Marquis pitched and gave up 13 runs in 5 innings. On July 17, Weaver only went 4 innings and the Cards lost 15-3 to the Braves. The next day Marquis went 5+ and gave up 12 runs.

 

If you take those two starts out of the equation, he ends up with an ERA of 5.13. If he only gives up 5 runs in each of those starts in the same number of innings pitched, he has an ERA of 5.33. While these ERA's certainly aren't great by any means, they're a hell of a lot better than the 6.02 he put up.

 

BTW, as an extra little stat I didn't notice before, Marquis game scores for these two games were -11 and -7 for the two games.

 

And if you take out those 2 starts, you should also take out his 2 best starts.

 

While it makes some sense to take out both extremes, it's just not the same. People want to consider his stats without these two bad starts since there is reasonable belief that outside factors (Larussa hanging him out to dry) were to blame. But, yeah, outside factors are always out there, so let's just assume that everything more or less evens out most of the time.

[killthegoat06]

Very nice optimistic article. That was enjoyable to read.

[biittner77]

So after we take out his two worst starts his ERA is still over 5 which is still terrible for someone that is making over league minimum.

 

It's great that Marquis has pitched well. Hopefully he will continue to do so. But I don't blame anyone for being pessimistic about Marquis future based on his body of work in the ML.

[CubColtPacer]

So after we take out his two worst starts his ERA is still over 5 which is still terrible for someone that is making over league minimum.

 

It's great that Marquis has pitched well. Hopefully he will continue to do so. But I don't blame anyone for being pessimistic about Marquis future based on his body of work in the ML.

 

I think people were responding to the crack that Marquis has no "stuff" to get back. His ML body of work also shows that he must have pretty decent stuff-he may not have shown that consistently, but it is there.

[BigbadB]

And if you take out those 2 starts, you should also take out his 2 best starts.

 

There wouldn't be a point to taking out his best starts, because what you really want is a guy who consistently goes out there and puts up quality starts. I don't know that Marquis fits that description, but I find it reasonable to remove a few real stinkers and leaving his best starts in there as an evaluation tool.

 

To look at it from an extreme, a pitcher who shuts out his opponent 30 times in a season, but has 5 starts where he gives up 30 runs each is actually a pretty valuable pitcher, even if his ERA is going to be way up there because of those 5 starts.

 

Why exclude his 5 best starts if you are

just attempting to see what his body of work looks like if you exclude a small handful of really bad games?