I know it's been a long time since I blogged at ya...

But I'm back!

And in the world of ridiculous headlines, this one takes the cake:

Marquis the one who got away

It's not often that I see something that makes me think, This cannot be real. But I thought exactly that when I saw that headline on the Sun-Times website. Yes, it is an actual headline of an actual article on an actual local paper's actual site. While at most papers the article's author doesn't write the headlines, just the idea that an editor could glean that from Chris De Luca's story blew my fucking mind and made the piece a must-read.

In truth, the headline misrepresents the main thrust of Chris De Luca's article, which is that the Cubs really shouldn't have dealt Mark DeRosa. (A point, incidentally, that I agree with.) But he nonetheless does argue that the Cubs miss Jason Marquis. That's right: The Cubs miss Jason Marquis. To wit:

Losing Marquis has been a bigger blow [than letting Kerry Wood leave]. The right-hander enters his start today against the Houston Astros with a 4-2 record and 3.92 ERA. Ted Lilly -- at 4-2 with a 3.11 ERA -- is the only member of the Cubs' regular rotation who has an ERA below 4.

This is horrible baseball analysis on so many levels:

Level 1: Using ERA as the only standard to determine a pitcher's effectiveness. Yes, Marquis' ERA looked good. But ERA has a lot of luck associated with it, and should only be part of the equation. De Luca fails to cite any other statistics, mostly because they will destroy his argument. Besides, every member of the Cubs' rotation has an ERA under 5, and this early in the season one good (or bad) start can change a pitcher's ERA by a full run. Ahem.

Level 2: Basing Marquis value on his six starts this season, as opposed to the 94 he made over the previous three seasons. Gee, I wonder which is more likely to be a fluke, and which is a large enough sample to derive some meaning from. Incidentally, Marquis' ERA in those 94 starts? 5.08. Not only is that worse than any member of the Cubs' rotation's ERA for this season, but it's also a far worse than any of their marks over those same three years: Rich Harden 2.57, Ryan Dempster 3.69, Carlos Zambrano 3.75, Ted Lilly 4.07, Sean Marshall 4.62.

Level 3: Failing to delve deeper into the numbers. Why was Marquis ERA so low? He clearly wasn't missing any bats, as his 19 strikeouts in 41.1 innings pitched came out to just 4.1 K/9 IP (Marshall has the worst K rate among the Cubs starters at 5.8 per 9; the rest are all at least 7.7).
So when De Luca cited Marquis' ERA, the first thing I wanted to know was his BABip (batting average of balls in play), a stat over which a pitcher has very little control. Essentially, a pitcher basically controls three things: home runs allowed, walks, and strikeouts. Most pitchers have a BABip right around .290; Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux, and John Smoltz all have career marks of .286, for instance, while Pedro Martinez is at .282 and Randy Johnson .295. At the other end of the successful pitching spectrum, Russ Ortiz is at .288, and Chan Ho Park .291. Marquis' career BABip is .285, and that's the same number he averaged over the last three seasons. But his 2009 BABip was an absurdly low .241, a mark that is quite simply not sustainable over a full season; in other words, Marquis' ERA was a complete fluke.

Obviously, I completely disagree with De Luca; in fact, getting rid of Jason Marquis was basically the only thing the Cubs did this past off-season that I liked. So imagine my extreme pleasure when in Marquis' aforementioned start against the Astros, he put up this line:

3.2 IP, 10 hits, 9 runs, 9 ER, 3 BB, 1 K

It isn't often that a writer with whom I disagree is immediately made to look foolish, so I truly basked in all the fabulous glory when I saw that Marquis was getting shelled. With one awful start (ahem), Marquis' precious ERA went up by more than a full run, and now stands at 5.40, a number that would be the worst in the Cubs' rotation. But oh how the Cubs should rue the day that he got away! Excellent insight, fine sir. I see why you are employed by a huge media conglomerate, and I'm stuck here blogging for two readers. Awesome. Just fucking awesome.