abuck1220

Of course it doesn't. But that's not the point at all. ok, so what is the point? The doomsday predictors don't know as much as they think they know. well, i was right about neifi, dempster, pierre and the team as a whole sucking last year, so maybe i'm pretty smart after all. and we all know i was right about hill being good.

Of course it doesn't. But that's not the point at all. ok, so what is the point?

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. The point is that both of these bad ballplayers didn't deserve their contracts and Marquis more specifically doesn't deserve his rotation spot over someone like Guzman or Marshall, especially at 7 mil a season. You're making my point. The guy who many thought was absolute garbage actually turns out to be above average. Even despite the reams of statistical evidence (allegedly) suggesting otherwise. Could Marquis follow the same path? Sure seems plausible to me. Yet the doomsday predictors aren't really allowing for this possibility. For them, the jury's already in -- Marquis is trash, Hendry's an idiot, the contract's insane, blah blah blah. These folks really ought to learn from recent history not to jump to conclusions so quickly. So after 1 slightly above average seasons by Jacque Jones you feel comfortable coming to the conclusion that he's good? I'm comfortable coming to the conclusion that the doomsday predictors that all but guaranteed that Jones would be absolutely terrible (and Marquis will be absolutely terrible) don't know as much as they think they know. sorry, but i don't think jones exceeding expectations last season has any effect on marquis doing the same this season.

i don't think there's any way pie matches jones' production in '07. and i can't see how a trade of jones fills any of the cubs' holes. i'm underwhelmed by the rotation of z, lilly, marquis, and hill, so i think the cubs could use a #2-3 type starter, but jones isn't going to get you that, and i think hendry's happy w/ the starting pitching. they could use an upgrade at ss, but hendry doesn't see it that way. i wouldn't trade jones, though i could see the cubs being so concerned with soriano's defense in cf that they want to get pie in there.

and brag.

Not necessarily true. See: Perez, Neifi. Even Neifi isn't all bad. It's how he's used. agreed. he's used as a baseball player, which is clearly not what he was made for.

who the hell cares if he makes a serviceable #5 starter? he's got a 3/$21 contract...those aren't the types of contracts you give to #5 starters. if he pitches like a #5 starter, he's a terrible waste of money. i also love that people seem to think rothschild is going to magically turn him around. i mean, rothchild's certainly had the golden touch over the past few seasons. and we all know marquis was previously working under two pretty hapless pitching coaches...

ps - you suck at taking pictures.

just because the people you're disagreeing with have presented adequate support for their position and you haven't doesn't mean that you should just resort to acting like a baby.

as i've said before, i have to wonder if you guys would be so optimistic about marquis if he had signed with the cardinals. i kinda doubt you would be.

plesac: not to harp on it...(followed by 30 seconds of harping).

plesac takes 30 seconds to say what should take 5 seconds to say.

i'd take about 75 when i'm there next week. samardzija's got moxie!

because in 2005 and 2004 the metaphorical Juan Pierre hit 25-30 HRs per year. Marquis G/F was 16 in the NL of all pitchers with 140+ IP in 2005. Marquis G/F was 2 in the NL of all pitchers with 140+ IP in 2004. look, I don't like his signing, but some of you are just taking the hatred of the guy too damn far. yeah, there was a lot of hate in my post. so he was very good (w/ regard to his g/f ratio) in '04, average in '05 and terrible in '06. i guess i see the trend as getting progressively worse...but that may just be me hating marquis.

*with the exception of championships. Yeah, but I'm the best in the regular season, when it really matters. :lol: i thought i had the most regular season points last year... I'm talking over the past three years. Consistency is key! sorry...i can't remember back that long. my memory only goes back as far as my two titles...

*with the exception of championships. Yeah, but I'm the best in the regular season, when it really matters. :lol: i thought i had the most regular season points last year...

:evil: at least it's in the dictionary: http://www.bartleby.com/61/84/I0238400.html Irregardless, it's still improper usage. :D It's called the modern English language. Get on board or get left behind. so you're saying the proper usage is irregardless?

*with the exception of championships.

whatever the category is, tim and raw are the best. that's all there is to it.

i haven't read through this whole thread, but does someone want to tell me why marquis is talked about as a groundball pitcher? he was at the bottom of the NL in g/f ratio last year and he led the NL in homers allowed. yeah, when he's throwing groundballs he's good, but that seems to be like saying when juan pierre hits homeruns he's good.

He can. He's played there quite a few times in his minor league career. not very well, however.

for some reason i've been listening to rome lately, and the above post is exactly what he does after each interview. then he reads 20 emails which basically kiss rome's ass, but include enough stuff about the interviewee so that it's not completely obvious that the listener has a boy crush on rome. he also uses slang and lingo like a high school freshman from the suburbs that thinks he's black.

i would guess that the mesa game is the one that will be televised.

PECOTA: 5.44 ERA Bill James: 5.14 CHONE: 5.13 ZIPS: 4.95 I'd say 4.40 is pretty optimistic. I'd love for it to happen, but it's more likely we see a 5-something. Previous to last year he put up ERA's of 4.13 and 3.71 and some other crappy ones. There is reason to believe he could fall inline close to the above numbers this year. no... baseball projections are always dead-on amen to that sarcasm. gut feelings from fans of the team the guy signs with following a good spring training outing are typically much more accurate. His performance in spring training has nothing to do with how I feel he will do for the Cubs this season. It is my opinion he will do much better than last year, how far-fetched is that? We will see who is right come October. i don't think it's far-fetched to think he'll be better this year. it'd be hard for him not to be.

so basically, other than being easy to hit he was pretty good? also, he sucked hard in 2002 and 2003. It's not about how many hits you give up. It's about how many runs you give up. ...and runs come from hits and walks (aka whip). Runs are tracked by ERA, not by WHIP. WHIP is a nice little ancillary stat, but ERA is much more important. It's not that different than football. What do you care more about? How many points you gave up or how many yards? and typically a guy who gives up a bunch of hits gives up a bunch of runs. and teams that give up a bunch of yards give up a bunch of points. pitchers and football teams can both get lucky. And is there any other possible explanation for a team that gives up a lot of yards but not a lot of points? Or a pitcher who gives up a lot of hits but not a lot of runs? Any other possible explanation? Like maybe the defense that a football team employs is a "bend but don't break" type that becomes increasingly more difficult as the offense nears the red zone? Or a pitcher who induces a high number of double play balls to partially offset the high number of hits he gives up? Possibly? Or is it all just luck? in the case of marquis' 2004 i'd say it was a little bit the double plays and a lot of luck.