Cubs interested in Randy Johnson

[Jehrico]

He's been bad more than he's been good the last three years, he's injury prone, and he's another year older. We shouldn't build expectations solely on his second half last year.

 

His numbers the last 3 years don't look particularly bad to me, other than the innings pitched in 2007 ... then again, he put up 184 IP last year, 205 in 2006, and 225 in 2005. I wouldn't have any problem with RJ on a one year contract. Especially if it means we're getting rid of Marquis.

He was particularly bad in 2006, putting up an ERA of 5.00, ERA+ of 90. That's worse than Marquis has been for us either of the last two years.

 

ERA is relatively meaningless if you look at it by itself, which is proven by that bolded statement. Johnson was not bad at all in 2006, he was just very unlucky. Take a closer look at his stats.

That's why I posted his ERA+. His WHIP wasn't horrible, but he was hit hard when he was hit. He was bad in 2006, and he was bad the first half of 2008. He was good the second half of 2008. He was good when he wasn't on the DL in 2007. That's one good half season, two good injury-plagued halves, and three bad halves out of the last 6 half seasons.

[17 Seconds]

He's been bad more than he's been good the last three years, he's injury prone, and he's another year older. We shouldn't build expectations solely on his second half last year.

 

His numbers the last 3 years don't look particularly bad to me, other than the innings pitched in 2007 ... then again, he put up 184 IP last year, 205 in 2006, and 225 in 2005. I wouldn't have any problem with RJ on a one year contract. Especially if it means we're getting rid of Marquis.

He was particularly bad in 2006, putting up an ERA of 5.00, ERA+ of 90. That's worse than Marquis has been for us either of the last two years.

 

ERA is relatively meaningless if you look at it by itself, which is proven by that bolded statement. Johnson was not bad at all in 2006, he was just very unlucky. Take a closer look at his stats.

That's why I posted his ERA+. His WHIP wasn't horrible, but he was hit hard when he was hit. He was bad in 2006, and he was bad the first half of 2008. He was good the second half of 2008. He was good when he wasn't on the DL in 2007. That's one good half season, two good injury-plagued halves, and three bad halves out of the last 6 half seasons.

 

Even ERA+ is a decieving stat. You said that he was "particularly bad" which isn't even close to being true. His WHIP "wasn't horrible"? You're just, just like Pujols' batting average this season "wasn't horrible". Obiously I'm not saying that Johnson's WHIp was excellent, but a 1.23 WHIP is very good, especially in the AL. His K/BB ratio was almost 3:1, he didn't give up a lot of hits, and he was still missing a good mount of bats. The only thing that was suspect was that he gave up a lot of bombs, but he's been that way his entire career.

 

To say that he was worse than Marquis has been in any of his 2 seasons with the Cubs is just flat out ridiculous. Johnson was a good pitcher in 2006, he was just unlucky.

[Jehrico]

He's been bad more than he's been good the last three years, he's injury prone, and he's another year older. We shouldn't build expectations solely on his second half last year.

 

His numbers the last 3 years don't look particularly bad to me, other than the innings pitched in 2007 ... then again, he put up 184 IP last year, 205 in 2006, and 225 in 2005. I wouldn't have any problem with RJ on a one year contract. Especially if it means we're getting rid of Marquis.

He was particularly bad in 2006, putting up an ERA of 5.00, ERA+ of 90. That's worse than Marquis has been for us either of the last two years.

 

ERA is relatively meaningless if you look at it by itself, which is proven by that bolded statement. Johnson was not bad at all in 2006, he was just very unlucky. Take a closer look at his stats.

That's why I posted his ERA+. His WHIP wasn't horrible, but he was hit hard when he was hit. He was bad in 2006, and he was bad the first half of 2008. He was good the second half of 2008. He was good when he wasn't on the DL in 2007. That's one good half season, two good injury-plagued halves, and three bad halves out of the last 6 half seasons.

 

Even ERA+ is a decieving stat. You said that he was "particularly bad" which isn't even close to being true. His WHIP "wasn't horrible"? You're just, just like Pujols' batting average this season "wasn't horrible". Obiously I'm not saying that Johnson's WHIp was excellent, but a 1.23 WHIP is very good, especially in the AL. His K/BB ratio was almost 3:1, he didn't give up a lot of hits, and he was still missing a good mount of bats. The only thing that was suspect was that he gave up a lot of bombs, but he's been that way his entire career.

 

To say that he was worse than Marquis has been in any of his 2 seasons with the Cubs is just flat out ridiculous. Johnson was a good pitcher in 2006, he was just unlucky.

First, if ERA+ is a deceiving stat, then there's no such thing as a stat that isn't, because it's almost as straight forward as it gets. You can't just discount his propensity to give up bombs either. Second, I'll roll with it. If you don't count 2006, that's two decent halves that were injury plagued, one good half, and one bad half out of the last four. He's a year older now. He's still injury prone. If we didn't have two other key guys in our rotation who were injury prone, maybe I'd think about it. Adding him on top of Z and Harden...No thanks.

[17 Seconds]

He's been bad more than he's been good the last three years, he's injury prone, and he's another year older. We shouldn't build expectations solely on his second half last year.

 

His numbers the last 3 years don't look particularly bad to me, other than the innings pitched in 2007 ... then again, he put up 184 IP last year, 205 in 2006, and 225 in 2005. I wouldn't have any problem with RJ on a one year contract. Especially if it means we're getting rid of Marquis.

He was particularly bad in 2006, putting up an ERA of 5.00, ERA+ of 90. That's worse than Marquis has been for us either of the last two years.

 

ERA is relatively meaningless if you look at it by itself, which is proven by that bolded statement. Johnson was not bad at all in 2006, he was just very unlucky. Take a closer look at his stats.

That's why I posted his ERA+. His WHIP wasn't horrible, but he was hit hard when he was hit. He was bad in 2006, and he was bad the first half of 2008. He was good the second half of 2008. He was good when he wasn't on the DL in 2007. That's one good half season, two good injury-plagued halves, and three bad halves out of the last 6 half seasons.

 

Even ERA+ is a decieving stat. You said that he was "particularly bad" which isn't even close to being true. His WHIP "wasn't horrible"? You're just, just like Pujols' batting average this season "wasn't horrible". Obiously I'm not saying that Johnson's WHIp was excellent, but a 1.23 WHIP is very good, especially in the AL. His K/BB ratio was almost 3:1, he didn't give up a lot of hits, and he was still missing a good mount of bats. The only thing that was suspect was that he gave up a lot of bombs, but he's been that way his entire career.

 

To say that he was worse than Marquis has been in any of his 2 seasons with the Cubs is just flat out ridiculous. Johnson was a good pitcher in 2006, he was just unlucky.

First, if ERA+ is a deceiving stat, then there's no such thing as a stat that isn't, because it's almost as straight forward as it gets. You can't just discount his propensity to give up bombs either. Second, I'll roll with it. If you don't count 2006, that's two decent halves that were injury plagued, one good half, and one bad half out of the last four. He's a year older now. He's still injury prone. If we didn't have two other key guys in our rotation who were injury prone, maybe I'd think about it. Adding him on top of Z and Harden...No thanks.

 

I never said anything about his injuries or wanting to sign him, so I don't know why you're talking about that. I'm just saying that it's silly to say he was "particularly bad" in 2006 and ever sillier to say he was worse than Marquis.

 

Obviously ERA+ puts too much emphasis on ERA alone, because there is no other reason for his ERA+ to be that low. He was NOT bad in 2006. You can tell this very simply by looking at his stats. They are all good.....except for ERA, which means that he was unlucky and guys got a lot of hits with RISP and the home runs came with guys on base. I never downplayed his home run total more than it deserevd to be. He's always given up home runs...even when he was dominating he was giving up home runs, so that's nothing new and doesn't show anything. Anyways, 28 home runs isn't that big of a deal when your WHIP is that low. His numbers are almost identical to Rich Hill's 2007 numbers. Would you say Rich Hill was bad in 2007?

[Vanilla Ice]

He's been bad more than he's been good the last three years, he's injury prone, and he's another year older. We shouldn't build expectations solely on his second half last year.

 

His numbers the last 3 years don't look particularly bad to me, other than the innings pitched in 2007 ... then again, he put up 184 IP last year, 205 in 2006, and 225 in 2005. I wouldn't have any problem with RJ on a one year contract. Especially if it means we're getting rid of Marquis.

He was particularly bad in 2006, putting up an ERA of 5.00, ERA+ of 90. That's worse than Marquis has been for us either of the last two years.

 

ERA is relatively meaningless if you look at it by itself, which is proven by that bolded statement. Johnson was not bad at all in 2006, he was just very unlucky. Take a closer look at his stats.

That's why I posted his ERA+. His WHIP wasn't horrible, but he was hit hard when he was hit. He was bad in 2006, and he was bad the first half of 2008. He was good the second half of 2008. He was good when he wasn't on the DL in 2007. That's one good half season, two good injury-plagued halves, and three bad halves out of the last 6 half seasons.

 

Even ERA+ is a decieving stat. You said that he was "particularly bad" which isn't even close to being true. His WHIP "wasn't horrible"? You're just, just like Pujols' batting average this season "wasn't horrible". Obiously I'm not saying that Johnson's WHIp was excellent, but a 1.23 WHIP is very good, especially in the AL. His K/BB ratio was almost 3:1, he didn't give up a lot of hits, and he was still missing a good mount of bats. The only thing that was suspect was that he gave up a lot of bombs, but he's been that way his entire career.

 

To say that he was worse than Marquis has been in any of his 2 seasons with the Cubs is just flat out ridiculous. Johnson was a good pitcher in 2006, he was just unlucky.

First, if ERA+ is a deceiving stat, then there's no such thing as a stat that isn't, because it's almost as straight forward as it gets. You can't just discount his propensity to give up bombs either. Second, I'll roll with it. If you don't count 2006, that's two decent halves that were injury plagued, one good half, and one bad half out of the last four. He's a year older now. He's still injury prone. If we didn't have two other key guys in our rotation who were injury prone, maybe I'd think about it. Adding him on top of Z and Harden...No thanks.

 

I never said anything about his injuries or wanting to sign him, so I don't know why you're talking about that. I'm just saying that it's silly to say he was "particularly bad" in 2006 and ever sillier to say he was worse than Marquis.

 

Obviously ERA+ puts too much emphasis on ERA alone, because there is no other reason for his ERA+ to be that low. He was NOT bad in 2006. You can tell this very simply by looking at his stats. They are all good.....except for ERA, which means that he was unlucky and guys got a lot of hits with RISP and the home runs came with guys on base. I never downplayed his home run total more than it deserevd to be. He's always given up home runs...even when he was dominating he was giving up home runs, so that's nothing new and doesn't show anything. Anyways, 28 home runs isn't that big of a deal when your WHIP is that low. His numbers are almost identical to Rich Hill's 2007 numbers. Would you say Rich Hill was bad in 2007?

 

WHIP is a much worse statistic than ERA+

[17 Seconds]

He's been bad more than he's been good the last three years, he's injury prone, and he's another year older. We shouldn't build expectations solely on his second half last year.

 

His numbers the last 3 years don't look particularly bad to me, other than the innings pitched in 2007 ... then again, he put up 184 IP last year, 205 in 2006, and 225 in 2005. I wouldn't have any problem with RJ on a one year contract. Especially if it means we're getting rid of Marquis.

He was particularly bad in 2006, putting up an ERA of 5.00, ERA+ of 90. That's worse than Marquis has been for us either of the last two years.

 

ERA is relatively meaningless if you look at it by itself, which is proven by that bolded statement. Johnson was not bad at all in 2006, he was just very unlucky. Take a closer look at his stats.

That's why I posted his ERA+. His WHIP wasn't horrible, but he was hit hard when he was hit. He was bad in 2006, and he was bad the first half of 2008. He was good the second half of 2008. He was good when he wasn't on the DL in 2007. That's one good half season, two good injury-plagued halves, and three bad halves out of the last 6 half seasons.

 

Even ERA+ is a decieving stat. You said that he was "particularly bad" which isn't even close to being true. His WHIP "wasn't horrible"? You're just, just like Pujols' batting average this season "wasn't horrible". Obiously I'm not saying that Johnson's WHIp was excellent, but a 1.23 WHIP is very good, especially in the AL. His K/BB ratio was almost 3:1, he didn't give up a lot of hits, and he was still missing a good mount of bats. The only thing that was suspect was that he gave up a lot of bombs, but he's been that way his entire career.

 

To say that he was worse than Marquis has been in any of his 2 seasons with the Cubs is just flat out ridiculous. Johnson was a good pitcher in 2006, he was just unlucky.

First, if ERA+ is a deceiving stat, then there's no such thing as a stat that isn't, because it's almost as straight forward as it gets. You can't just discount his propensity to give up bombs either. Second, I'll roll with it. If you don't count 2006, that's two decent halves that were injury plagued, one good half, and one bad half out of the last four. He's a year older now. He's still injury prone. If we didn't have two other key guys in our rotation who were injury prone, maybe I'd think about it. Adding him on top of Z and Harden...No thanks.

 

I never said anything about his injuries or wanting to sign him, so I don't know why you're talking about that. I'm just saying that it's silly to say he was "particularly bad" in 2006 and ever sillier to say he was worse than Marquis.

 

Obviously ERA+ puts too much emphasis on ERA alone, because there is no other reason for his ERA+ to be that low. He was NOT bad in 2006. You can tell this very simply by looking at his stats. They are all good.....except for ERA, which means that he was unlucky and guys got a lot of hits with RISP and the home runs came with guys on base. I never downplayed his home run total more than it deserevd to be. He's always given up home runs...even when he was dominating he was giving up home runs, so that's nothing new and doesn't show anything. Anyways, 28 home runs isn't that big of a deal when your WHIP is that low. His numbers are almost identical to Rich Hill's 2007 numbers. Would you say Rich Hill was bad in 2007?

 

WHIP is a much worse statistic than ERA+

 

Any stat is bad when you look at it by itself.

 

Luckily for me, I didn't use WHIP by itself, so I'm not sure I see what the point of your post is. WHIP is an important stat as long as you look at the big picture. Are you saying that total baserunners allowed isn't relevant?

[Vanilla Ice]

He's been bad more than he's been good the last three years, he's injury prone, and he's another year older. We shouldn't build expectations solely on his second half last year.

 

His numbers the last 3 years don't look particularly bad to me, other than the innings pitched in 2007 ... then again, he put up 184 IP last year, 205 in 2006, and 225 in 2005. I wouldn't have any problem with RJ on a one year contract. Especially if it means we're getting rid of Marquis.

He was particularly bad in 2006, putting up an ERA of 5.00, ERA+ of 90. That's worse than Marquis has been for us either of the last two years.

 

ERA is relatively meaningless if you look at it by itself, which is proven by that bolded statement. Johnson was not bad at all in 2006, he was just very unlucky. Take a closer look at his stats.

That's why I posted his ERA+. His WHIP wasn't horrible, but he was hit hard when he was hit. He was bad in 2006, and he was bad the first half of 2008. He was good the second half of 2008. He was good when he wasn't on the DL in 2007. That's one good half season, two good injury-plagued halves, and three bad halves out of the last 6 half seasons.

 

Even ERA+ is a decieving stat. You said that he was "particularly bad" which isn't even close to being true. His WHIP "wasn't horrible"? You're just, just like Pujols' batting average this season "wasn't horrible". Obiously I'm not saying that Johnson's WHIp was excellent, but a 1.23 WHIP is very good, especially in the AL. His K/BB ratio was almost 3:1, he didn't give up a lot of hits, and he was still missing a good mount of bats. The only thing that was suspect was that he gave up a lot of bombs, but he's been that way his entire career.

 

To say that he was worse than Marquis has been in any of his 2 seasons with the Cubs is just flat out ridiculous. Johnson was a good pitcher in 2006, he was just unlucky.

First, if ERA+ is a deceiving stat, then there's no such thing as a stat that isn't, because it's almost as straight forward as it gets. You can't just discount his propensity to give up bombs either. Second, I'll roll with it. If you don't count 2006, that's two decent halves that were injury plagued, one good half, and one bad half out of the last four. He's a year older now. He's still injury prone. If we didn't have two other key guys in our rotation who were injury prone, maybe I'd think about it. Adding him on top of Z and Harden...No thanks.

 

I never said anything about his injuries or wanting to sign him, so I don't know why you're talking about that. I'm just saying that it's silly to say he was "particularly bad" in 2006 and ever sillier to say he was worse than Marquis.

 

Obviously ERA+ puts too much emphasis on ERA alone, because there is no other reason for his ERA+ to be that low. He was NOT bad in 2006. You can tell this very simply by looking at his stats. They are all good.....except for ERA, which means that he was unlucky and guys got a lot of hits with RISP and the home runs came with guys on base. I never downplayed his home run total more than it deserevd to be. He's always given up home runs...even when he was dominating he was giving up home runs, so that's nothing new and doesn't show anything. Anyways, 28 home runs isn't that big of a deal when your WHIP is that low. His numbers are almost identical to Rich Hill's 2007 numbers. Would you say Rich Hill was bad in 2007?

 

WHIP is a much worse statistic than ERA+

 

Any stat is bad when you look at it by itself.

 

Luckily for me, I didn't use WHIP by itself, so I'm not sure I see what the point of your post is. WHIP is an important stat as long as you look at the big picture. Are you saying that total baserunners allowed isn't relevant?

from what i can see, WHIP is the only stat you showed that was good.

[davearm2]

Does anyone participating in this discussion realize that ERA+ is simply ERA normalized to league average? So ERA+ is just ERA with a base of 100.

 

Bottom line, if you don't like ERA, then you shouldn't like ERA+ for all of the same reasons.

[Vanilla Ice]

Does anyone participating in this discussion realize that ERA+ is simply ERA normalized to league average? So ERA+ is just ERA with a base of 100.

 

Bottom line, if you don't like ERA, then you shouldn't like ERA+ for all of the same reasons.

yes

[davearm2]

Does anyone participating in this discussion realize that ERA+ is simply ERA normalized to league average? So ERA+ is just ERA with a base of 100.

 

Bottom line, if you don't like ERA, then you shouldn't like ERA+ for all of the same reasons.

yes

Really? Weren't you the one that said, "WHIP is a much worse statistic than ERA+"?

 

There's a heckuva lot more noise in runs allowed than baserunners allowed.

[17 Seconds]

He's been bad more than he's been good the last three years, he's injury prone, and he's another year older. We shouldn't build expectations solely on his second half last year.

 

His numbers the last 3 years don't look particularly bad to me, other than the innings pitched in 2007 ... then again, he put up 184 IP last year, 205 in 2006, and 225 in 2005. I wouldn't have any problem with RJ on a one year contract. Especially if it means we're getting rid of Marquis.

He was particularly bad in 2006, putting up an ERA of 5.00, ERA+ of 90. That's worse than Marquis has been for us either of the last two years.

 

ERA is relatively meaningless if you look at it by itself, which is proven by that bolded statement. Johnson was not bad at all in 2006, he was just very unlucky. Take a closer look at his stats.

That's why I posted his ERA+. His WHIP wasn't horrible, but he was hit hard when he was hit. He was bad in 2006, and he was bad the first half of 2008. He was good the second half of 2008. He was good when he wasn't on the DL in 2007. That's one good half season, two good injury-plagued halves, and three bad halves out of the last 6 half seasons.

 

Even ERA+ is a decieving stat. You said that he was "particularly bad" which isn't even close to being true. His WHIP "wasn't horrible"? You're just, just like Pujols' batting average this season "wasn't horrible". Obiously I'm not saying that Johnson's WHIp was excellent, but a 1.23 WHIP is very good, especially in the AL. His K/BB ratio was almost 3:1, he didn't give up a lot of hits, and he was still missing a good mount of bats. The only thing that was suspect was that he gave up a lot of bombs, but he's been that way his entire career.

 

To say that he was worse than Marquis has been in any of his 2 seasons with the Cubs is just flat out ridiculous. Johnson was a good pitcher in 2006, he was just unlucky.

First, if ERA+ is a deceiving stat, then there's no such thing as a stat that isn't, because it's almost as straight forward as it gets. You can't just discount his propensity to give up bombs either. Second, I'll roll with it. If you don't count 2006, that's two decent halves that were injury plagued, one good half, and one bad half out of the last four. He's a year older now. He's still injury prone. If we didn't have two other key guys in our rotation who were injury prone, maybe I'd think about it. Adding him on top of Z and Harden...No thanks.

 

I never said anything about his injuries or wanting to sign him, so I don't know why you're talking about that. I'm just saying that it's silly to say he was "particularly bad" in 2006 and ever sillier to say he was worse than Marquis.

 

Obviously ERA+ puts too much emphasis on ERA alone, because there is no other reason for his ERA+ to be that low. He was NOT bad in 2006. You can tell this very simply by looking at his stats. They are all good.....except for ERA, which means that he was unlucky and guys got a lot of hits with RISP and the home runs came with guys on base. I never downplayed his home run total more than it deserevd to be. He's always given up home runs...even when he was dominating he was giving up home runs, so that's nothing new and doesn't show anything. Anyways, 28 home runs isn't that big of a deal when your WHIP is that low. His numbers are almost identical to Rich Hill's 2007 numbers. Would you say Rich Hill was bad in 2007?

 

WHIP is a much worse statistic than ERA+

 

Any stat is bad when you look at it by itself.

 

Luckily for me, I didn't use WHIP by itself, so I'm not sure I see what the point of your post is. WHIP is an important stat as long as you look at the big picture. Are you saying that total baserunners allowed isn't relevant?

from what i can see, WHIP is the only stat you showed that was good.

 

Yea..except for all the other ones. I think you need to pay more attention because what you just said isn't even close to being true.

 

Not a lot of hits given up

Not a lot of walks given up

Missed bats

Good K/BB

 

Actually it's the other way around. The only stat that you show is bad is ERA

 

Really it's very simple to look at his stats and understand that his ERA was flukey. I really don't get why it's hard for you to understand. His numbers are almost identical to Rich Hill's 2007

[Drew Doughty]

it's also worth noting that randy johnson had a bad back in 2006 that, IIRC, really affected him when he was pitching out of the stretch. he had a LOB% of 61.8 that year, which is insanely low (average is around 70 off the top of my head). in 04 he had a 69.5 LOB%, 05 = 74.1, 07 = 72.6, and 08 = 70.9.

 

06 was a fluke due to a bad back which he had surgery on. it doesn't bother him any more, it's stupid to look at his 06 as an indicator of future success (or lackthereof).

 

also quoting ERA, saying ERA is a bad stat, and then saying ERA+ is a good stat is kind of weird.

[Vanilla Ice]

1) I only read dexter's most recent post so I only had seen him quoting RJ's WHIP

2) I never said ERA was a bad stat and ERA+ was a good one

3) WHIP is not a very good statistic either

[Rob]

Randy Johnson has been below average exactly once since Nelson Mandela was let out of prison.

 

Calling him bad, or saying he's likely to be bad is stupid. You can say he might not be healthy... you can say you don't think he's worth the money he'd cost. But arguing that he's bad... that's stupid.

[Drew Doughty]

1) I only read dexter's most recent post so I only had seen him quoting RJ's WHIP

2) I never said ERA was a bad stat and ERA+ was a good one

3) WHIP is not a very good statistic either

 

i wasn't really replying to anyone in specific.

 

no stat is really good on its own. i don't really see why we're pointing to one statistic as being good or bad (though ERA and ERA+ are as bad as it gets if you look at them alone).

[cubsfan26]

According to Bruce Levine the Cubs are still interested in Randy Johnson even after resigning Dempster. That will most likely mean Jason Marquis being traded, and Sean Marshall still being the swing guy.

[justlikethecubs]

According to Bruce Levine the Cubs are still interested in Randy Johnson even after resigning Dempster. That will most likely mean Jason Marquis being traded, and Sean Marshall still being the swing guy.

 

So if we sign Johnson, that obviously kills the Peavy deal right? Unless Harden or Lilly are in that deal. Obviously Peavy would be better but having a Johnson as a potential 4th or 5th starter isnt a bad option.

[Derwood]

Rotoworld reporting that the A's may be interested in the Big Unit

[Southpaw191679666239]

Rotoworld reporting that the A's may be interested in the Big Unit

 

Not only have they reported it, they've mistakenly already sent him to Oakland as far as team name, color and logo on their site.

 

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll31/southpaw19_josh/rjerror.png

[UMFan83]

Oakland certainly thinks they can compete next year. I find that odd.