Marquez 2009 Stats = Javy 2008?

[beck72]

The more I look at Jeff Marquez's writeups and numbers, the more I like him. It's not just the latest young arm Kenny has acquired after giving us Danks and Floyd. [Though the sox do seem to target and follow certain pitchers and see if they can acquire them. Like the sox had been targeting Booby Parnell and Kunz from the Mets, in trade talks.] It's the way he seems to fit into the sox rotation. He'd give the sox a different look from the current 1-3, esp. with his sinker and changeup from the RH side.

• Classic sinker ball pitcher, though w/ above avg. velocity and plus movement;

• Power change up

• Yanks expected him in ’07 to pitch in the bigs;

http://mariners.scout.com/a.z?s=318&p=2&c=347065

 

• Comparison to Chien-Ming Wang; but should get higher K rate

http://thenewyorkyankeesbaseball.blogspot....ey-marquez.html

 

Add in this nugget from the Trib. when the trade went down: "Sox scouts William Young and Gary Pellant scouted Marquez, 24, for the last two years". These are the same guys who gave us Danks. At the time, that was controversial, giving up a pretty solid #3 SP in BMac for a guy a year or two away from the bigs. [Of course, they also like Masset. But the key was Danks]. Kenny made the deal based on their work. I haven't seen who were the scouts who gave us Floyd.

 

Marquez was on target in 2008 to throw in AAA a mid 3's ERA with solid k and BB rates after having success in each level prior last year. The only blip was last year, when he had a shoulder strain. With the Yanks, you can't experience failure. As the sox had scouted Marquez previously, when he was available, they landed him. Make no mistake, Marquez was the key to the Swisher deal. Betemit is a UTL guy and Nunez is a wildcard. It lands on Marquez to make the Swisher for Gio, DLS and Sweeney a wash.

 

So, I'm looking at Marquez to at least give the sox in 2009 what Vazquez did in 2008--ERA wise. Marquez won't go 200+ innings, as the sox will make sure he's pulled early from games. I'd expect 170-180 innings, with a 4.50 ERA.

 

For 2010 and beyond, I could see Marquez being a sub 4.00 ERA pitcher.

 

Projections, thoughts?

[Dick Allen]

I'm thinking his 6-7 record in AAA with a 4.69 ERA with a 1.45 WHIP with 2.7 BB/9 innings and 3.7 k/9 innings with 1.3 HR/9 innings all at the AAA level suggest something totally different than what you predict. You think he will do better in the AL than in AAA. I find that hard to believe. He's never pitched more than 155 innings on the minor league level and has pitched over 102 innings twice. I think he may wind up in Masset's old role if he isn't in Charlotte. Maybe someday a 5th starter. He's not nearly the elite prospect Danks was when he was acquired.

Edited December 20, 2008 by Dick Allen

[beck72]

I'm thinking his 6-7 record in AAA with a 4.69 ERA with a 1.45 WHIP with 2.7 BB/9 innings and 3.7 k/9 innings with 1.3 HR/9 innings all at the AAA level suggest something totally different than what you predict. You think he will do better in the AL than in AAA. I find that hard to believe. He's never pitched more than 155 innings on the minor league level and has pitched over 102 innings twice. I think he may wind up in Masset's old role if he isn't in Charlotte. Maybe someday a 5th starter. He's not nearly the elite prospect Danks was when he was acquired.

2008 was the only year he struggled. He had previus years of 3.60 ERA's in AA and high A in 2007 and 2006. Without the injury, he was on course to repeat those numbers in AAA in 08.

 

The fact the sox scouts have been after him for 2 years, and dealing Javy without seemingly a back up plan, leaving the sox without a #4, suggests the sox think he has a solid chance to replace Javy's numbers in 2009.

[Dick Allen]

2008 was the only year he struggled. He had previus years of 3.60 ERA's in AA and high A in 2007 and 2006. Without the injury, he was on course to repeat those numbers in AAA in 08.

 

The fact the sox scouts have been after him for 2 years, and dealing Javy without seemingly a back up plan, leaving the sox without a #4, suggests the sox think he has a solid chance to replace Javy's numbers in 2009.

Without the injury? How was he "on course" to repeat those numbers at a higher level? I don't see it. Keep in mind, White Sox scouts are not always correct. To get Danks, they had to give up their best pitching prospect. To get Quentin, they had to give up a pretty good prospect. Those trades worked out great. To get Marquez and a couple of other guys, they had to give up a strikeout machine who is owed $24 million and hit .219. I think it was a great trade. If the Sox get anything from any one of the three, its gravy. I don't understand overlooking AAA stats and relying on AA stats to give you an idea of what a player is going to do at the major league level immediately. Jerry Owens hit .331 in AA in 2005. What has that translated to? The White Sox have had several pitchers do well at AA and that hasn't meant squat. If you look at the guys these particular scouts have reccommended which I have no idea who they are, Danks probably stands out, but I'm sure there are quite a few guys they have liked that haven't amounted to anything. Marquez was sliding on the Yankees prospects chart. He wouldn't have been a top 10 for 2009. His strikeout rate, and I know its not the end all, was brutally low, and should be expected to be lower at a higher level. There just aren't many pitchers in MLB history that have been very successful who have fanned one every 3 innings. He has always given up a lot of hits, and for a guy who supposedly has a great sinker, the ball tends to leave the yard a lot when he's on the mound. If he is in the rotation, the White Sox will not contend.

[scenario]

I'm thinking his 6-7 record in AAA with a 4.69 ERA with a 1.45 WHIP with 2.7 BB/9 innings and 3.7 k/9 innings with 1.3 HR/9 innings all at the AAA level suggest something totally different than what you predict. You think he will do better in the AL than in AAA. I find that hard to believe.

 

Danks had around a 5.00 ERA in AA; and a 4.33 ERA in AAA. Do you find it hard to believe that he is performing better than that in the AL?

 

And Jeff Marquez had a 3.65 or lower ERA in 4 of his 5 minor league seasons.

 

I'm not suggesting that Marquez is going to step up and pitch at that level, but why cherry pick his ONE sub-par year to try and suggest that he's not any good.

 

 

[sircaffey]

Danks had around a 5.00 ERA in AA; and a 4.33 ERA in AAA. Do you find it hard to believe that he is performing better than that in the AL?

 

And Jeff Marquez had a 3.65 or lower ERA in 4 of his 5 minor league seasons.

 

I'm not suggesting that Marquez is going to step up and pitch at that level, but why cherry pick his ONE sub-par year to try and suggest that he's not any good.

 

Danks was 20 and 21 years old when he put those stats up in AA and AAA respectively. Marquez was 22 and 23 years old at the same levels. That's a huge difference when comparing the two.

 

As far as projecting Marquez, scouting reports from 3 years ago don't do it for me. From what I've read that's been written recently, there are still questions about his curve and change. He's a project. I'm not putting much stock into him.

[elrockinMT]

I feel strongly both ways about these stats and Marquez B)

 

Actually I have to say is all we can do is hope we get a good return from the Swisher trade. I am not sold on previous yeasr minor league stats either, but talent can be molded into a winner

[Dick Allen]

Danks had around a 5.00 ERA in AA; and a 4.33 ERA in AAA. Do you find it hard to believe that he is performing better than that in the AL?

 

And Jeff Marquez had a 3.65 or lower ERA in 4 of his 5 minor league seasons.

 

I'm not suggesting that Marquez is going to step up and pitch at that level, but why cherry pick his ONE sub-par year to try and suggest that he's not any good.

Danks' ERA his rookie year was 5.50. Marquez is nowhere near Danks in ability. You'll be lucky to get that out of him in 2009. If you're going to rip what I have to post, go out on a limb and say Marquez will be just like Danks. I just find it more telling what a guy did in 2008 in AAA rather than what he did in 2007 in AA in projecting what he will do in 2009 if he's even at a higher level. Its just me. Besides, they are two very different styles. I suggest he's not any good because he's 1 of 3 guys traded for what I mentioned before, a strikeout machine who hit .219 and is owed $24 million. You usually don't pick up 3 stars for that.

Edited December 20, 2008 by Dick Allen

[Jimbo's Drinker]

If he is our 4th starter, chaos ensues.

[Dick Allen]

This guy is closer to Lance Broadway than John Danks. I wouldn't be surprised if Broadway is better.

[scenario]

Danks' ERA his rookie year was 5.50. Marquez is nowhere near Danks in ability. You'll be lucky to get that out of him in 2009. If you're going to rip what I have to post, go out on a limb and say Marquez will be just like Danks. I just find it more telling what a guy did in 2008 in AAA rather than what he did in 2007 in AA in projecting what he will do in 2009 if he's even at a higher level. Its just me. Besides, they are two very different styles. I suggest he's not any good because he's 1 of 3 guys traded for what I mentioned before, a strikeout machine who hit .219 and is owed $24 million. You usually don't pick up 3 stars for that.

 

Ripped you? By suggesting that you cherry-picked one year of bad numbers to support your prediction that he would suck in the future, eh??

 

That's not called ripping... that's called exposing flaws in logic.

 

 

[eickevinmorris]

Ripped you? By suggesting that you cherry-picked one year of bad numbers to support your prediction that he would suck in the future, eh??

 

That's not called ripping... that's called exposing flaws in logic.

It is hardly cherry picking to cite his most recent stats at the highest level of the minor leagues. Your logic is flawed.

 

[Dick Allen]

Ripped you? By suggesting that you cherry-picked one year of bad numbers to support your prediction that he would suck in the future, eh??

 

That's not called ripping... that's called exposing flaws in logic.

If Danks was bad in the minors as you suggest, and he wasn't very good his rookie year, and Gavin Floyd has really only had 1 good year, wouldn't it be cherry picking under your definition to think they are now on their way to being anchors of the rotation for years? The biggest jump a pitcher makes isn't from A to AA or AA to AAA or A to AAA, its from wherever to the big leagues. This guy hasn't proven he can get AAA hitters out yet. I'd venture to guess just about everyone predicting his success in the major leagues in 2009 has never seen him pitch. They base everything on KW's conference call. Exactly what would you expect KW to say about someone he just traded for, especially if he's going to be negotiating for starting pitchers? Just remember what KW said when he got Sisco, Aardsma, Masset... Joe Borchard was going to be an impact player as was Willie Harris. He's not going to trade Swisher and say the pitchers he got back are mediocre at best prospects. Nunez is now with his 4th organization. Marquez was sliding on the Yankees prospect list.

 

Flawed logic is suggesting a guy was decent at AA and the lower levels but struggled at AAA but the struggling doesn't matter. Its cherry picking. He'll be a solid 4th or 5th starter for a contending team on the major league level immediately.

Edited December 20, 2008 by Dick Allen

[scenario]

It is hardly cherry picking to cite his most recent stats at the highest level of the minor leagues. Your logic is flawed.

 

Alright... let's play this in reverse.

 

If he had a career minor league ERA in the mid 4's with no years in the 3's... except for one... which just happened to be the most recent season...

 

How many people would be saying "the other 4 bad years don't count... projections should only be based on his most recent (good) year"?

 

LOL. I think the answer is zero.

 

Edited December 20, 2008 by scenario

[NorthSideSox72]

This argument has played out here many times, on many other players. A player does well through the minors, then for whatever reason, reaches a certain level (AAA, AA) and has a bad season. This always prompts people to fall into one of two camps:

 

--He reached a peak and just isn't going to be that good

--He had a bad year (or an injury), and is likely to bounce back

 

People in both camps are each right, some of the time. So brushing off either one is silly.

 

Instead, here is the question - how do you determine which is the case, with an individual player?

 

Also of note - this type of player is exactly the kind of talent that KW likes to pick up.

 

[beck72]

Without the injury? How was he "on course" to repeat those numbers at a higher level? I don't see it. Keep in mind, White Sox scouts are not always correct. To get Danks, they had to give up their best pitching prospect. To get Quentin, they had to give up a pretty good prospect. Those trades worked out great. To get Marquez and a couple of other guys, they had to give up a strikeout machine who is owed $24 million and hit .219. I think it was a great trade. If the Sox get anything from any one of the three, its gravy. I don't understand overlooking AAA stats and relying on AA stats to give you an idea of what a player is going to do at the major league level immediately. Jerry Owens hit .331 in AA in 2005. What has that translated to? The White Sox have had several pitchers do well at AA and that hasn't meant squat. If you look at the guys these particular scouts have reccommended which I have no idea who they are, Danks probably stands out, but I'm sure there are quite a few guys they have liked that haven't amounted to anything. Marquez was sliding on the Yankees prospects chart. He wouldn't have been a top 10 for 2009. His strikeout rate, and I know its not the end all, was brutally low, and should be expected to be lower at a higher level. There just aren't many pitchers in MLB history that have been very successful who have fanned one every 3 innings. He has always given up a lot of hits, and for a guy who supposedly has a great sinker, the ball tends to leave the yard a lot when he's on the mound. If he is in the rotation, the White Sox will not contend.

Marquez ERA: '05, low A-3.42; with 0.3 HR/9; 3.9 BB/9; 6.9 K/9

'06-high A-3.61; with 0.4 HR/9; 2.8 BB/9; 8.0 K/9

'07- AA 3.65; with 0.6 HR/9; 2.5 BB/9; 5.4 K/9

Pretty consistent, going a year each level; He puts up a mid 3 ERA in AAA with similar BB/9 and K/9 and he's a very solid 5th SP to count on for 2009. Esp. to start the 1st half. He may fade in the 2nd half, like most rookies do as they throw more innings than they ever have. Yet the sox have Jose and possibly Poreda, not to mention a better farm system to acquire a SP at the deadline.

 

The 2008 Javy was a 5th SP. the sox still need a consistent 4th SP. That's why I like the talk of Garland coming back. But I think Marquez could top out at a #3.

[R.J.]

Injury, fluke year, or not, it would be a stubborn mistake to put this guy in your rotation next year. He completely lost it in his first taste of AAA pitching. He got beat up in the AFL. If the Sox think he can spend half a season there and then move up to the big leagues then god bless them. If they think they can ignore that season and promote this guy then they have no idea what they're doing.

 

It's fine to be optimistic and look at all these stats and scouting reports and think that Marquez might work as a #4 starter. Forgive me if that doesn't excite me. You can't insert a pitcher into your starting rotation as a reward for having his worst professional season to date.

[beck72]

This argument has played out here many times, on many other players. A player does well through the minors, then for whatever reason, reaches a certain level (AAA, AA) and has a bad season. This always prompts people to fall into one of two camps:

 

--He reached a peak and just isn't going to be that good

--He had a bad year (or an injury), and is likely to bounce back

 

People in both camps are each right, some of the time. So brushing off either one is silly.

 

Instead, here is the question - how do you determine which is the case, with an individual player?

 

Also of note - this type of player is exactly the kind of talent that KW likes to pick up.

Good points. That's why the sox scouts track players from other teams. And Kenny gets credit or blame based on the results. The sox seem pretty confident that Marquez will be on the 2009 sox. Esp. by dealing Javy without a 4th SP in house.

 

Seeing Marquez throw in the AFL might have opened the sox scouts eyes. Maybe he threw like he did last year, when he was an "up and comer" and not available via trade. The Yanks have little tolerance for poor performance from the minor leaguers. Esp. pitchers. Other teams can be more patient with their pitchers, and let them struggle and see if they rebound.

 

[sircaffey]

Alright... let's play this in reverse.

 

If he had a career minor league ERA in the mid 4's with no years in the 3's... except for one... which just happened to be the most recent season...

 

How many people would be saying "the other 4 bad years don't count... projections should only be based on his most recent (good) year"?

 

LOL. I think the answer is zero.

 

These aren't established veteran players. We are talking about prospects, and the most important thing to see from prospects is progression. So looking at his minor league performance from 3 years ago tells you basically nothing about what kind of player he is now. He better not be the player he was 3 years ago or even 2 years ago for that matter.

 

Next year is a huge year for Marquez, but I highly doubt we see him get much action in the majors.

 

You can project off minor league statistics. They are entirely too misleading.

[sircaffey]

Marquez's AFL performance:

 

9 G, 5 GS...24.0 IP, 29 H, 10 BB, 20 K, 5.63 ERA, 1.63 WHIP

 

All statistical signs point to him not being Major League ready.

[DaTank]

If Marquez does in fact have comparable numbers to Javy, we would have basically traded Swisher and Javy's contract for Marquez, Betemit, and Nunez. Pretty good deal if you ask me. I still think he probably won't break the 25-man roster out of ST.

[False Alarm]

marquez's 2007 at AA was nothing special at all. his groundball percentage--at AA--was only 52% (for a guy who's billed as a sinkerballer/groundball machine). his k/9 was bad. it's well established that ERA doesn't predict future performance very well. there's no recent scouting report that indicates his stuff is good again now, and everyone can agree that his 2008 was spectacularly bad. i have no idea why anyone would think he'd be decent at the major-league level in any role whatsoever in 2009. i hope the chisox scouts have, like, inside info or something that's not apparent to us, but with the info we have, it's unrealistic to expect a notable contribution out of him in the bigs this year.

Edited December 21, 2008 by False Alarm

[fathom]

marquez's 2007 at AA was nothing special at all. his groundball percentage--at AA--was only 52% (for a guy who's billed as a sinkerballer/groundball machine). his k/9 was bad. it's well established that ERA doesn't predict future performance very well. there's no recent scouting report that indicates his stuff is good again now, and everyone can agree that his 2008 was spectacularly bad. i have no idea why anyone would think he'd be decent at the major-league level in any role whatsoever in 2009. i hope the chisox scouts have, like, inside info or something that's not apparent to us, but with the info we have, it's unrealistic to expect a notable contribution out of him in the bigs this year.

 

This is the best post I've seen in a while.

[beck72]

marquez's 2007 at AA was nothing special at all. his groundball percentage--at AA--was only 52% (for a guy who's billed as a sinkerballer/groundball machine). his k/9 was bad. it's well established that ERA doesn't predict future performance very well. there's no recent scouting report that indicates his stuff is good again now, and everyone can agree that his 2008 was spectacularly bad. i have no idea why anyone would think he'd be decent at the major-league level in any role whatsoever in 2009. i hope the chisox scouts have, like, inside info or something that's not apparent to us, but with the info we have, it's unrealistic to expect a notable contribution out of him in the bigs this year.

From Minor League Baseball:

For 2007:

 

"Was 15-9 with a 3.65 ERA (155.1IP, 166H, 80R, 63ER, 44BB, 94K) in 27 starts with Double-A Trenton...opponents batted .270 (166-for-615, 11HR); LH .292 (83-for-284, 5HR), RH .251 (83-for-331, 6HR)...led the Eastern League in wins, ranked second in innings pitched and placed 10th in ERA... his 15 wins placed him second among all Double-A pitchers and tied for ninth overall in the minors..."

 

Also the Eastern League All Star Game Starting Pitcher

 

GB / FB rate: 1.30, not 52%

[southsider2k5]

This argument has played out here many times, on many other players. A player does well through the minors, then for whatever reason, reaches a certain level (AAA, AA) and has a bad season. This always prompts people to fall into one of two camps:

 

--He reached a peak and just isn't going to be that good

--He had a bad year (or an injury), and is likely to bounce back

 

People in both camps are each right, some of the time. So brushing off either one is silly.

 

Instead, here is the question - how do you determine which is the case, with an individual player?

 

Also of note - this type of player is exactly the kind of talent that KW likes to pick up.

 

The Carlos Quentin says "Sup b****es?"