Tigers and Willis agree to 3 year $29M contract

[HoopsCubs]

Buys out his first year of free agency, and has other incentive clauses.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3163167

[Derwood]

29 is a weird number

[Banghart]

29 is a weird number

I always liked 29.

 

-banghart

[cubs121]

i really think this is a really good deal for the Tigers... especially since there are really bad pitchers out there getting way more...

[AlwaysaCub]

i really think this is a really good deal for the Tigers... especially since there are really bad pitchers out there getting way more...

 

Yeah...Jason Marquis got 24 over 3 and has never been a quarter of the pitcher Dontrelle Willis is.

[WilcoFan]

i really think this is a really good deal for the Tigers... especially since there are really bad pitchers out there getting way more...

 

Yeah...Jason Marquis got 24 over 3 and has never been a quarter of the pitcher Dontrelle Willis is.

 

Jason Marquis 2007 ERA+: 101

Dontrelle Willis 2007 ERA+: 83

 

Jason Marquis is not good. Dontrelle Willis, aside from an amazing 2005, hasn't been particularly great, either. Average to slightly above average, sure. Not great, though. And nowhere near where his name recognition has placed him in the league.

[CubinNY]

i really think this is a really good deal for the Tigers... especially since there are really bad pitchers out there getting way more...

 

Yeah...Jason Marquis got 24 over 3 and has never been a quarter of the pitcher Dontrelle Willis is.

 

Jason Marquis 2007 ERA+: 101

Dontrelle Willis 2007 ERA+: 83

 

Jason Marquis is not good. Dontrelle Willis, aside from an amazing 2005, hasn't been particularly great, either. Average to slightly above average, sure. Not great, though. And nowhere near where his name recognition has placed him in the league.

You aren't seriously saying Marquis compares Willis are you?

 

Willis's career ERA+ is 110, Marquis has only had one season with an ERA+ over 110.

[Clem Fandango]

i think he was just proving a point that not all the big name players are actually as good as advertised. Willis was one of the worst pitchers in the majors this year and at the same time hasn't been as dominating as people seem to think he's been throughout his career. I think he, as well as anyone with a pulse, knows that Willis is leaps and bounds better than Marquis, but was trying to make a point that Marquis was better this year than Willis when someone said Marquis isn't nearly as good as Willis. In actuality, I think they're both right. I personally think Willis is overrated. That's not to say I'd rather have Marquis on the team though. Marquis is a joke

[javy knows my name]

i really think this is a really good deal for the Tigers... especially since there are really bad pitchers out there getting way more...

really?

[Clem Fandango]

i really think this is a really good deal for the Tigers... especially since there are really bad pitchers out there getting way more...

really?

 

ya rly

[badnews]

It's a great deal for the Tigers, but you can't compare it with Marquis's deal really, because if he were a free agent, Willis would've gotten more, even though he sold off his first FA year cheaply.

[WilcoFan]

i really think this is a really good deal for the Tigers... especially since there are really bad pitchers out there getting way more...

 

Yeah...Jason Marquis got 24 over 3 and has never been a quarter of the pitcher Dontrelle Willis is.

 

Jason Marquis 2007 ERA+: 101

Dontrelle Willis 2007 ERA+: 83

 

Jason Marquis is not good. Dontrelle Willis, aside from an amazing 2005, hasn't been particularly great, either. Average to slightly above average, sure. Not great, though. And nowhere near where his name recognition has placed him in the league.

You aren't seriously saying Marquis compares Willis are you?

 

Willis's career ERA+ is 110, Marquis has only had one season with an ERA+ over 110.

 

Ummm...wasn't really comparing the two at all. Not long term, at least.

 

I was responding to the section I bolded in the original post, i.e "Marquis has never been a quarter of the pitcher Dontrelle Willis is." In fact, Marquis was a better pitcher than was Willis in 2007. And Marquis is a horrible pitcher.

 

Dontrelle Willis is a slightly above average pitcher. But he is perceived by many as being one of the best pitchers in baseball because of name recognition (and a ridiculous 2005). The usage of Marquis was in no way to compare the two, nor to say the Cubs are better off with Marquis' horrible contract. The argument simply was that Dontrelle Willis is not nearly as good as the name recognizers seem to think, and that hyperbole like "Marquis has never been a quarter of the pitcher Dontrelle Willis is" is not wrong because Marquis is good (he's not), but its wrong because Willis isn't as good as advertised.

[haltz]

In fact, Marquis was a better pitcher than was Willis in 2007.

Not really. Single season ERA numbers are a pretty silly way to say who was "a better pitcher".

 

hyperbole like "Marquis has never been a quarter of the pitcher Dontrelle Willis is" is not wrong because

... it's hyperbole.

[CubColtPacer]

In fact, Marquis was a better pitcher than was Willis in 2007. And Marquis is a horrible pitcher.

Not really. Single season ERA numbers are a pretty silly way to say who was "a better pitcher".

 

Maybe so, but there's also the fact that Marquis walked less batters per inning than Willis (3.57 BB/9 for Marquis, 3.81 BB/9 for Willis), gave up less home runs (1.03 HR/9 for Marquis, 1.27 HR/9 for Willis), a lower WHIP (1.39 for Marquis, 1.60 for Willis), and a lower OPS against (.739 for Marquis, .840 for Willis). The only thing Willis has an advantage in is strikeouts. It seems pretty silly to contend that Willis's year was not worse than Marquis. At the same time, it would be pretty silly to insinuate that Willis and Marquis were the same caliber of pitcher, as Willis is far and away better.

 

As has been pointed out, the key with this contract is that it is not an open market contract. On the open market, his bad year would have been mostly ignored and he would have gotten a much bigger payday. In arbitration, Willis might not have gotten the same types of raise this year because of his bad year and so buying out one year of free agency in order to insure a bigger payday in the next year or two seems like a prudent move.

[inari]

In fact, Marquis was a better pitcher than was Willis in 2007.

Not really. Single season ERA numbers are a pretty silly way to say who was "a better pitcher".

 

hyperbole like "Marquis has never been a quarter of the pitcher Dontrelle Willis is" is not wrong because

... it's hyperbole.

 

Then what can we use? Marquis had a much better WHIP as well.

[haltz]

You are talking about a spectacularly good defensive team and a historically awful one. And Willis' HR/FB is a fluke, just like Marquis'. I think that takes care of everything but the K/BB where Willis has the advantage.

 

I actually don't really care all that much. I was just annoyed that Wilco took up a literalist position to counter what he admits is hyperbole, then used a ridiculous measurement as a statement of fact.

[WilcoFan]

You are talking about a spectacularly good defensive team and a historically awful one. And Willis' HR/FB is a fluke, just like Marquis'. I think that takes care of everything but the K/BB where Willis has the advantage.

 

I actually don't really care all that much. I was just annoyed that Wilco took up a literalist position to counter what he admits is hyperbole, then used a ridiculous measurement as a statement of fact.

 

And I posted because I was annoyed that someone used ridiculous hyperbole as a statement of fact and no one challenged the ignorance of the statement. There are considerable instances on this board of people using hyperbole to argue things like Mark Prior is a wuss, and they ALWAYS are challenged (rightfully so) using a literalist position. I'm not really sure why me challenging an equally ridiculous statement is such a problem. Sure, I relied upon ERA+, but that's simply because that one stat alone should be enough to dissuade people from relying upon ridiculous hyperbole simply to bash Marquis.

 

More importantly, I wanted to underscore the fact that much of the reason why Dontrelle Willis is so revered by casual baseball fans is because of his terrific 2005, not because he's been a top 5 pitcher his entire career (even though many would consider him in the team photo). He is not light years ahead of any pitcher in the major leagues, let alone one who was statistically better than him last year.

[haltz]

And I posted because I was annoyed that someone used ridiculous hyperbole as a statement of fact and no one challenged the ignorance of the statement.

Well, hyperbole is "intentional and obvious exaggeration". By definition it is not a statement of fact. It is a statement of fact that Marquis is not the pitcher that Willis is. Just because he had a year where they came close is relatively meaningless. He said "never" which is true, Marquis has never been as good, and usually far behind. According to you, one is "terrible" and the other one "above average".

 

You can also interpret that as true talent, which would make it meaningless even if he did pitch better once. I bet if you divide by their pitching runs, you will get a number larger than 25% though. So you've shot that hyberbolic statement of fact down, I suppose.

 

He is not light years ahead of any pitcher in the major leagues, let alone one who was statistically better than him last year.

You're going to have to tell me why he was statistically better, instead of dismissing my argument out of hand. ERA+ is good measure of how many earned runs crossed the plate, adjusted for context. That's it. It is not good at telling you how well a pitcher pitched.

 

You've completely destroyed another notion. That being that he is "one of the best pitchers in baseball". I've yet to see someone take that absurd position in this thread.

[WilcoFan]

And I posted because I was annoyed that someone used ridiculous hyperbole as a statement of fact and no one challenged the ignorance of the statement.

Well, hyperbole is "intentional and obvious exaggeration". By definition it is not a statement of fact. It is a statement of fact that Marquis is not the pitcher that Willis is. Just because he had a year where they came close is relatively meaningless. He said "never" which is true, Marquis has never been as good, and usually far behind. According to you, one is "terrible" and the other one "above average".

 

You can also interpret that as true talent, which would make it meaningless even if he did pitch better once. I bet if you divide by their pitching runs, you will get a number larger than 25% though. So you've shot that hyberbolic statement of fact down, I suppose.

 

He is not light years ahead of any pitcher in the major leagues, let alone one who was statistically better than him last year.

You're going to have to tell me why he was statistically better, instead of dismissing my argument out of hand. ERA+ is good measure of how many earned runs crossed the plate, adjusted for context. That's it. It is not good at telling you how well a pitcher pitched.

 

You've completely destroyed another notion. That being that he is "one of the best pitchers in baseball". I've yet to see someone take that absurd position in this thread.

 

Ugh. As much as I enjoy minutiae, even I cannot muster the energy for a debate on the definition of "never" versus "sometimes," "statement of fact" versus "true opinion," and the relationship between defense and pitching on the 2007 Florida Marlins. It is really not worth delving into the minutiae that comes with a debate about what institutes "statement of fact." I think my point was clear to pretty much everyone regarding Willis, and the point I was making was a relatively minor one to begin with. Feel free to continue the discussion on your own.

[AlwaysaCub]

You are talking about a spectacularly good defensive team and a historically awful one. And Willis' HR/FB is a fluke, just like Marquis'. I think that takes care of everything but the K/BB where Willis has the advantage.

 

I actually don't really care all that much. I was just annoyed that Wilco took up a literalist position to counter what he admits is hyperbole, then used a ridiculous measurement as a statement of fact.

 

And I posted because I was annoyed that someone used ridiculous hyperbole as a statement of fact and no one challenged the ignorance of the statement. There are considerable instances on this board of people using hyperbole to argue things like Mark Prior is a wuss, and they ALWAYS are challenged (rightfully so) using a literalist position. I'm not really sure why me challenging an equally ridiculous statement is such a problem. Sure, I relied upon ERA+, but that's simply because that one stat alone should be enough to dissuade people from relying upon ridiculous hyperbole simply to bash Marquis.

 

More importantly, I wanted to underscore the fact that much of the reason why Dontrelle Willis is so revered by casual baseball fans is because of his terrific 2005, not because he's been a top 5 pitcher his entire career (even though many would consider him in the team photo). He is not light years ahead of any pitcher in the major leagues, let alone one who was statistically better than him last year.

 

Being the original poster, I concede your point about 2007. Also, his walks are up and strikeouts are down. All true. If you look at their histories, Willis has been superior to Marquis 3 out of the 5 years he has been in the league, with the best single season out of any of them being his 2005 season. So, Jason Marquis is more than a quarter of the pitcher the D-Train is but still isn't his equal. I think Dontrelle will also be helped by going to a much better team and defense even in the better league.

 

Marquis was really good for about 2 months this year, but if the Cubs had made it to the LCS Piniella was going to pitch Marshall instead as the 4th starter, which says a lot about Marquis. Furthermore, I think most NSBB posters would have agreed with that move.