Edwin Jackson

[Schwarber Fan]

Go ahead and throw all sorts of advanced statistics out, but this guy is never going to be a consistent major league starter.

 

If he's anything higher than our #4 starter, this team is not going to be competitive. He had a nice month, but the signing is looking like a bad one.

[Guest]

Go ahead and throw all sorts of advanced statistics out,

"I don't care what the facts are, now read more of my emotional ramblings. This deserves a thread!!"

 

but this guy is never going to be a consistent major league starter.

Except he already has been for a long time.

 

 

If he's anything higher than our #4 starter, this team is not going to be competitive.

Complete nonsense for various reasons.

 

He had a nice month, but the signing is looking like a bad one.

It will be hard for him not to be worth his contract.

[bukie]

Oh good, more aramis fan fan nonsense.

[Fro]

Somehow Fangraphs has him at 2 WAR, only 0.2 behind Travis Wood

 

This is why I don't trust WAR.

[WrigleyField 22]

Well Fangraphs is the more predictive WAR right? BR is more, "tell me what happened". What does BR say?

[Guest]

Somehow Fangraphs has him at 2 WAR, only 0.2 behind Travis Wood

 

This is why I don't trust WAR.

 

fWAR is based on peripherals and fielding independent numbers, which are the numbers you should trust (at least, in a predictive sense) over more traditional numbers.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Save this stuff for the game thread.

[Sammy Sofa]

Jackson has been like the go-to dividing line in conversations I've had about the team this year.

[ctcf]

Go ahead and throw all sorts of advanced statistics out,

"I don't care what the facts are, now read more of my emotional ramblings. This deserves a thread!!"

 

but this guy is never going to be a consistent major league starter.

Except he already has been for a long time.

 

 

If he's anything higher than our #4 starter, this team is not going to be competitive.

Complete nonsense for various reasons.

 

He had a nice month, but the signing is looking like a bad one.

It will be hard for him not to be worth his contract.

 

Bravo

[Guest]

"Anything above a #4 starter?" You realize being a #4 starter qualifies him as a "consistent major league starter", right?

[imb]

Go ahead and throw all sorts of advanced statistics out,

"I don't care what the facts are, now read more of my emotional ramblings. This deserves a thread!!"

 

SHUT IT DOWN. LET'S GO HOME.

[Schwarber Fan]

He just doesn't consistently give the Cubs chances to win games. Been the same pitcher his whole career.

[Schwarber Fan]

Go ahead and throw all sorts of advanced statistics out,

"I don't care what the facts are, now read more of my emotional ramblings. This deserves a thread!!"

 

SHUT IT DOWN. LET'S GO HOME.

 

Sure they are emotional, but an ERA of 5 is a fact too. I know there are better stats to evaluate pitchers, but it can't be ignored.

[Guest]

throw this man in a pit

[Sammy Sofa]

Been the same pitcher his whole career.

 

this guy is never going to be a consistent major league starter

 

So which is it?

[Guest]

Go ahead and throw all sorts of advanced statistics out, but this guy is never going to be a consistent major league starter.

 

If he's anything higher than our #4 starter, this team is not going to be competitive. He had a nice month, but the signing is looking like a bad one.

 

You slept on it and were still so annoyed that you had to make a hyper-reactionary new thread about it instead of doing so in the game thread?

 

As a rule of thumb, if every post you make on the topic is some flavor of "I don't care what arguments you make, x is never going to y", you probably aren't in a good state of mind on the topic.

[Careless]

Well Fangraphs is the more predictive WAR right? BR is more, "tell me what happened". What does BR say?

Negative 1.1. Just about the biggest fwar/bwar difference you'll see

 

But as I mentioned in the gamethread, he's nderperformed his FIP/xFIP for 4 years now, so he's certain to get lucky and be good next year

[Schwarber Fan]

Been the same pitcher his whole career.

 

this guy is never going to be a consistent major league starter

 

So which is it?

 

Aren't there guys who have stuck around the majors for years that you wouldn't consider consistent? Jason Marquis and Aaron Harang come to mind. They are good enough every now and then to get rotation spots somewhere every year and to me, that is what Jackson is. Whether or not that makes him a "consistent ML starter" is a matter of semantics.

 

And TT, I get what you are saying, but it's not just emotional. You can tell me "he's been unlucky" or "his stats don't tell the story," but regardless of how bad the cubs offense and bullpen are, the majority of his starts have been awful, and we've seen little to no improvement on his career trends, which is what we hoped when we signed him.

[Sammy Sofa]

Been the same pitcher his whole career.

 

this guy is never going to be a consistent major league starter

 

So which is it?

 

Aren't there guys who have stuck around the majors for years that you wouldn't consider consistent? Jason Marquis and Aaron Harang come to mind. They are good enough every now and then to get rotation spots somewhere every year and to me, that is what Jackson is. Whether or not that makes him a "consistent ML starter" is a matter of semantics.

 

Jackson hasn't been a streaky pitcher where he's only "good enough every now and then." You're letting a bad and really unlucky first year cloud your judgement.

 

Plus my point was that those two statements are completely at odds; how can he have been the same pitcher his whole career if he's not consistent? Unless you're saying his consistently inconsistent, which simply isn't the case.

[Schwarber Fan]

Unless you're saying his consistently inconsistent, which simply isn't the case.

 

Sure it is. He has starts where he looks like he's harnessed his stuff, and starts where he walks everyone and hit gets hit all over the park while striking out no one. That's been his whole career for the most part.

[Sammy Sofa]

Unless you're saying his consistently inconsistent, which simply isn't the case.

 

Sure it is. He has starts where he looks like he's harnessed his stuff, and starts where he walks everyone and hit gets hit all over the park while striking out no one. That's been his whole career for the most part.

 

That's the career of most pitchers.

 

I mean, you have batters who look useful or even great about 30% of the time and then stink the other 70%. Its ridiculous.

[Schwarber Fan]

Unless you're saying his consistently inconsistent, which simply isn't the case.

 

Sure it is. He has starts where he looks like he's harnessed his stuff, and starts where he walks everyone and hit gets hit all over the park while striking out no one. That's been his whole career for the most part.

 

That's the career of most pitchers.

 

I mean, you have batters who look useful or even great about 30% of the time and then stink the other 70%. Its ridiculous.

 

If a pitcher "stinks" 70% of the time, they are probably not going to be in a major league rotation. Not fair to use that comparison.

[Sammy Sofa]

Nobody's thinks a pitcher being bad 70% of the time would be acceptable; the point is that your opinion over Jackson is all based on perception. To you he's inconsistent and any good outings are just outliers vs. his bad games being indicative of the pitcher he "really is." You've created a self-fulfilling prophecy where any bad or mediocre outing he has (regardless of how it's inevitable that all pitchers have bad outings, and the ones that aren't the best tend to have them on a fairly regular basis) is, to you, indicative of the "real Jackson." He's a serviceable, useful pitcher who is a good option to have who is having a rough year. It happens, but he's very likely to bounce back.

[neely crenshaw]

"Anything above a #4 starter?" You realize being a #4 starter qualifies him as a "consistent major league starter", right?

 

Why does being in someone's rotation make you a consistent major league starter? was Volstad? There are a handful of guys pushing 20 starts that roll out a 6.00 era...I wouldn't call them consistent major league starters, heck I wouldn't really call them starters. They just happen to be on a team where they have to start.

He has a 5.00 era, about half a run over his career average. On a good team he's around a .500 pitcher. He was no better than the 4 at Washington, probably a 5 with St louis and the Sox.

I don't see why it's a stretch to say he should be no better than our 4. Heck hasn't he really been our 4 or 5 this year? I'm certainly hoping our young pitchers improve and we sign one more top end guy. So it sure seems like he better be 4 or 5.

[Guest]

"Anything above a #4 starter?" You realize being a #4 starter qualifies him as a "consistent major league starter", right?

 

Why does being in someone's rotation make you a consistent major league starter? was Volstad? There are a handful of guys pushing 20 starts that roll out a 6.00 era...I wouldn't call them consistent major league starters, heck I wouldn't really call them starters. They just happen to be on a team where they have to start.

He has a 5.00 era, about half a run over his career average. On a good team he's around a .500 pitcher. He was no better than the 4 at Washington, probably a 5 with St louis and the Sox.

I don't see why it's a stretch to say he should be no better than our 4. Heck hasn't he really been our 4 or 5 this year? I'm certainly hoping our young pitchers improve and we sign one more top end guy. So it sure seems like he better be 4 or 5.

 

So your assertion is that he hasnt been a consistent major league starter? I'm confused. Did you understand my post or are you just saying words?