Danny82

I got a rejection.

I'm still thinking about it, because your hypothetical really doesn't make much sense.

Virtually impossible. Maybe a four year extension.

Wouldn't it be a 4.50 ERA?

I still hope he puts it together. I think it's unlikely for a guy with as shaky of a mind as his to put it together for any extended period of time.

I have to guess that they start sending them out very shortly. Although, I was still able to pick up the tickets I had accidentally designated for mail delivery at the will call window this morning.

Thanks for the updates. What ever happened to Mark Reed? I'd actually forgotten about him. Is he still at catcher? How did he do last year and where is he likely to start this season?

Do you guys really buy those tickets if you get a positive email? Those dugout seats seem outrageously expensive.

Oh, right, the information gained from nine or so innings that he has thrown against a collection of minor leaguers, with some major leaguers tossed in. Is it the 1.44 WHIP that excites you? How many runs has he given up? When is the last time the Cubs lost a game because their WHIP was higher than the other team's? Regardless of whether it is only 9 innings, it's three separate outings on three different days where he induced a very high rate of ground balls. I fully acknowledge that it is an extremely small sample size, but it's also the latest information at our disposal. Historically, he has had pretty decent success when he has induced a high rate of ground balls. Accordingly, there is nothing wrong with presenting the alternative that he might be alright this year if he keeps on getting groundballs. And much different than just stating "well he might not suck!" just for the hell of it, as you make it sound to be the case, wouldn't you agree?

To IMB!: Except the viewpoints that think Marquis has a chance to be a good #5 this year are based on information that has come to light this spring, i.e., that he is inducing ground balls at a very high level. Taking that position about Marquis' prospects this season based on new information is different than simply stating "but he might not suck!" as you are overgeneralizing the position as being.

FWIW, while the ticket office did cancel 6 of the 12 tickets I ordered to the 4/21 Cards game, they did let me keep all 10 tickets I ordered for the 6/2 Braves game. Also, make sure you count your tickets when you pick them up. They originally shorted me all 6 of my tickets for that Cards game. I asked them to recheck and they then gave me those tickets as well. That would have sucked to have not gotten those tickets even though I paid for them. I doubt they would have believed me had I come back later and said I didn't receive them.

He was barely above average offensively. Even if the doomsday predictors said he would be below average, they had more evidence to say that than people had evidence to say he would be good. Or maybe their evidence wasn't as definitive as they thought it was? I mean, by your logic, can the doomsday predictors ever be wrong? If the player they predict to perform poorly does so, they are right, but if he performs well, they had the stats in their favor to predict he would perform poorly and so they took the only reasonable position, even if they ended up wrong? The fact of the matter is that statistics, while very useful tools (especially for evaluating performance), are not as definitive for predicting player performance as some would like to believe. These are human beings we are talking about, after all.

Yes, I am familiar with auto-correlation. I've had a few courses in statistics and degree in finance. But, it's been a few years since I've run any tests. That said, what kind of tests were ran? I just find it hard to believe that running ERA for the past 3-5 years isn't predictive of what that pitcher's ERA will be for the next year (assuming same league and similar park). And how useful is auto-correlation when it only runs a few years' worth of numbers? Obviously, auto-correlation numbers are much more predictive when you have numerous input values.

Fine, that's your opinion. Just out of curiosity, what was his ERA+ those years? Also at a level that would be very good for a fifth starter? 113 and 103. Thanks. Where do you guys get that info? I couldn't find it on ESPN or mlb.com.

Fine, that's your opinion. No, it's basically fact. ERA in and of itself is not a good predictor of future success. I'd like to see why, for starting pitchers, ERA isn't a good predictor of short term future success. And the answer to my ERA+ question?

Fine, that's your opinion. Just out of curiosity, what was his ERA+ those years? Also at a level that would be very good for a fifth starter?

As would I. Seriously, where is the evidence that Marquis will somehow veer from his norm and suddenly become good? Is it the friend-of-a-friend account of Rothschild finding some miracle cure for his mechanics? Meph, devilish as he may be, has provided enough evidence to the contrary. Well, the reason I am holding out hope is that I consider ERA to best statistic to measure a pitcher's value (my opinion) and, in 2004 and 2005, his ERA was what I consider to be very good for a fifth starter. I don't see why it is unreasonable to think he has a fair likelihood of duplicating one of those seasons this year rather than what he did in 2006.

And has averaged over 200 a year over the past three. Wouldn't you consider those to be relevant numbers?

He said there were two games. I pointed out there were three. Big deal. FWIW, I think maybe you would get your point across better here if you didn't talk down to people so much.

He has three starts by my count.

He isn't a strikeout pitcher. He goes into most every at bat trying to induce a ground ball. just because he tries to do something it doesnt mean its the right thing And what did you say the times when someone like Kerry Wood was at 100 pitches after five innings because he was trying to strike everyone out? He has to pitch to his strength. It makes little sense for him to waste more pitches in an effort to strike more people out if that isn't what he does best.

He isn't a strikeout pitcher. He goes into most every at bat trying to induce a ground ball.

Are you wanting Jones packaged because you feel Pie should be in CF on opening day? no, because i want murton to play everyday. So you're willing to make the season much harder to do that? If you trade Jones now, you either have Pie in CF (where the offense almost certainly suffers) or you have Murton in RF and Floyd in LF everyday, which is a disaster waiting to happen-if it be from terrible defense or Floyd breaking down. depriving murton of playing time now is a disaster waiting to happen. the guy looks like he could be on the verge of a breakout season. if he's not getting plate appearances, that doesn't bode so well for the team. i can live with below average defense in the outfield if it means that murton continues his progression. if floyd is healthy enough by opening day, i doubt murton gets many PA's. Murton will get 400 PA regardless-he'll get all the AB's against left-handers, some of the right-handers, and pinch-hitting appearances-besides, now that he's Lou's number 1 option for a number 2 hitter he's going to get a good amount of playing time. i don't think that getting him more plate appearances by pinch hitting him more is going to make me feel any better. Huh? He merely listed pinch hitting opportunities as the last of three scenarios that would combine to get him 400 PAs. The fact that you've been an avid proponent of trading Jones for nothing to ensure that Murton gets more playing time makes me wonder if you care more about Murton getting as many PAs as possible than the Cubs winning ballgames.

This quote makes it sound like Guzman was lights out dominant yesterday. Granted, I didn't see the game, but what is so spectacular about giving up five hits in three innings (with one K)?

nfm