bukie

Given Marmol's numbers as a starter over parts of 5 years in the minors, I'd say the likelihood he could put up a 3.50 ERA (which, honestly, is a high bar for even an above average starter) is decent, possibly even 50-50. His biggest deterrent right now from being an effective starter is his pitch efficiency. Really, if the guy's going to average 20+ pitches an inning, it'll be difficult to stretch him out into an effective starter.

Effectiveness is much more needed to get a team ahead in the first place. Sure, when a team has a 1-2 run lead late, it's nice to have effective pitching to finish out the game. However, effective pitching to start the game will lead to many more 1-2 run leads late than 1-2 run deficits late. I'd much rather have an 90% effective starter and a 60% effective reliever than the other way around. Sure, with an 90% effective reliever, you'd feel confident once you have the lead late, but with a 90% effective starter, you'd feel confident that you would have the lead late to begin with.

I hope I've done enough already in this thread to show that this is a false assumption. You have not. The two things I have an issue with are: You have made no distinction between leads and deficits. A reliever coming in constantly with a 1-2 run deficit is not nearly as valuable as a reliever coming in constantly with a 1-2 runs lead. Giving up 1-2 runs when you're already behind simply lowers your already low chance of winning. Giving up 1-2 runs when you're barely ahead decreases your chances of winning a lot more than that. There is no distinction made that top relievers come in sometimes (and if the manager is smart, a good percentage of the time) with runners already on, which makes the game closer than the score would necessarily indicate. Considering a starter never comes in with a 1-2 run deficit, this only further indicates the fallacy that relievers come in with more close situations. A starter is always entering a tie game. The only difference between a 1-0 game in the third and a 1-0 game in the ninth is that the team has fewer opportunities in front of it to score more runs to win the game. Plus, there exist possibilities earlier in the game that haven't come to fruition by late in the game. However, the pitcher himself has very little control over those possibilities. The pitcher can only be primarily concerned with what he does have direct control over, and that is limiting walks, HRs, and LDs and maximizing Ks and pitch efficiency. That job is the same in the first as it is in the ninth.

I hope I've done enough already in this thread to show that this is a false assumption.

Bullpen roles are extremely overrated. Getting the most innings out of the best pitchers when run prevention is needed is far more important than putting your best relievers in at designated spots in the game. Just because a game is in the ninth inning, doesn't make those three outs the most significant outs in the game. There are many other factors to consider, the most important of those is using your best pitchers in situations to prevent the team from scoring runs most often. Sure, in a 7-0 game, there's less need to prevent runs from scoring, but in a close game, whether it's the 6th inning or the 9th inning, preventing runs from scoring means just as much. Stats like VORP and Win Shares are cumulative, yes. They give less credit to relievers, specifically because relievers participate less than starters. You may not think that's fair, because relievers are just as valuable in their innings as starters are in theirs...and while that may be true, simply pitching 1/3 as much time as a starter is really what is limiting their value, there. SNLVAR and WXRL are two stats calculated separately. They can't really be used interchangeably, as one compares starters to starters to find a replacement level, and the other compares relievers to relievers. Unless you work under the assumption that the average reliever == the average starter (or, even more of a stretch, a replacement-level reliever == a replacement-level starter), it's not a fair comparison. I think it's a more safe assumption that the average starter > the average reliever.

Win Share totals disagree with you. Over the past four years, the best reliever year (2004 Brad Lidge - 17.2 pitching win shares) comes in as the 38th best pitching year over those past four years, the equivalent of 2007 Zambrano/Lilly. A good example of a pitcher that was both an effective starter and reliever is John Smoltz. In 2004, he was the fourth most effective reliever in baseball (Lidge, Gagne, Benitez). He finished the year with 12.1 Pitching Win Shares. The next three years, he was an effective starter, with Win Share totals of 21.1, 19.4, and 17.5. I think your assumptions lean heavily on the concepts of win probability, which are really quite arbitrary and provide little predictive value. It does provide for some fun charts to look at, though.

I understand perfectly. Total value contributed, over 90 innings. You don't think he'd contribute more value than that over 200 innings? Sure, his value per appearance would drop somewhat, but his overall value would most likely increase significantly. Four runs in the first = four runs in the ninth. In the end, that's still four runs the team has to account for. If you prefer the cutoff to be 3 runs, the stats look the same. Starters pitch in more close situations than relievers. It's not presumptive, it's a fact. Which has been shown to you twice, in very specific ways. If you prefer to keep your head in the sand about it, though, there's no point in discussing it further.

OK, splits from THIS year, then: Marquis has pitched to 822 batters, 810 of which were when the game was within 4 runs. Marmol has pitched to 393 batters, 379 of which were when the game was within 4 runs. And this is with Marmol being overused at a rate he can't possibly keep up as a reliever, and Marquis being basically god-awful as a starter. Marquis has pitched in more "close" situations than Marmol, at a more frequent rate. Marmol is equally valuable as Zambrano, but he's only getting 1/3 of the innings to be that valuable.

I think you're underestimating how often a starter is throwing with the game in doubt. If you think about it, every single game a starter pitches, they enter the game tied. If you use your best pitcher as a reliever, you are banking on a lesser pitcher throwing 60-70% of the game well enough to give the Cubs a lead, so that your "crucial" inning(s) can be thrown by Mr. Dependable. However, every inning is crucial, from 1 to 9. It's just as important to pitch well enough in innings 1-6 to give the Cubs a chance to win as it is in inning 8 to maintain that chance. For every slim 2-1 8th inning lead that needs to be held down, there's a game that slipped away in the early innings due to shoddy starting pitching.

Wow, if that's not extremely arbitrary and dishonest. Marquis faced 2920 batters last year. 2905 of them were when the game was within 4 runs. Marmol faced 780 batters last year. 742 of them were when the game was within 4 runs. So, actually, Marmol faced more situations where the game was essentially already decided.

Marmol in his career as a starter - meh. Marmol in his career as a reliever - ridiculoawesome. Shrug. ] This. Plus: Marmol's Expected Wins Added Above Replacement: 2.516, second in all of baseball behind Brad Lidge. Support Neutral Win-Loss Above Replacement (essentially the equivalent stat for a starter): Zambrano: 2.6, Dempster: 1.8. A high-leverage reliever is every bit as valuable as an ace starter. You keep saying this, but you neglect to take into account that a reliever, even the most overworked reliever in baseball, is throwing about 90 innings. A solid starter is generally throwing at least twice that for the year. So, then, to maximize overall team value, the most effective pitchers on the team should be used in situations where they throw the majority of the innings. I'd rather see Marmol get 200 innings and Marquis get 90 than the other way around. Even if a Marmol 90-inning year is hugely effective.

Quick count on free outs given to the Dodgers tonight? Three that they actually conceded, with two botched sac bunts and one failed steal to "stay out" of the double play (by running into it!). In addition, Cedeno was also trying to give up an out in the eighth. So, basically, Lou was giving away a good 15% of the Cubs' outs for the game for free. Some would say that in a day where the wind is blowing hard in, you have to "manufacture" runs anyway, give up outs to get one run. I'd argue that outs are even more valuable in that case.

Trick question. They would both win, and I pity anyone who would try to cross them.

I was thinking Fontenot starting would push DeRosa to the OF to give Fukudome a break for tonight, and was waiting for a declaration of war from Japan.

I often wonder if the Cubs management suffered a mental collapse.

'69? What about '89? The Cubs and Mets rivalry was really second only to the Cubs/Cards rivalry on the north side from the 60's until '93.

You just accounted for 163 games in a 162 game season. :D He's predicting an extra road win in a one-game playoff to finish the season.

If Kerry can avoid hitting the guy or giving up a routine fly to LF, this game should be over.

Rose > Beasley, but if there were a way for the Bulls to somehow get both, sign me up. Rose + Beasley > Hinrich + Deng.

Sorry for my ignorance, but are you saying something like "not you, Bruce," here? Or are you just asking his take? I think its "and you" Well I know what it means in French, I was just wondering what he meant by it It's parodying a famous line from Julius Caesar, "Et tu, Brute?", meaning "You too, Brutus?", just prior to being stabbed in the back by someone he considered a friend. I used it because Bruce mentioned Theriot was gritting his way into being good. And to try to be funny and stuff. Which apparently failed miserably, as people either didn't get the reference or thought I was serious.

Irony, folks. And a little bit of fun. Yeah, yeah, I know. I just never thought I'd get a better time to use that one.

Et tu, Bruce?

Word on the street is that the Heat don't want Beasley, and would be looking to trade the pick if the Bulls select Rose. If I'm the Bulls, I look into what kind of a package it would take to get the second pick, too.

He never made it passed spring training. Just another stop on his mission to wear every major league uniform at least once. Didn't realize Spring Training went all the way through April 23 in 1999.